37<\/strong>. But Paul said unto them<\/em> ] i.e. to the lictors, through the jailor. It is highly probable that the conversation of the Roman officers would be in Latin, and that the proceedings of the previous day may have been conducted in that language. In this way, if Paul and Silas were unfamiliar with the Latin speech, we might account for the non-mention or the disregard of their Roman citizenship. If either the Apostle did not comprehend all that was going on or could not, amid the confusion of such a tumultuous court, make himself understood, the message which he now sends to the magistrates might have had no chance of being heard before the scourging was inflicted.<\/p>\n They have beaten us openly<\/em> ] i.e. publicly. (So R. V.<\/em>) For no doubt they had been lashed to the palus<\/em> or public whipping-post in the sight of the people.<\/p>\n uncondemned<\/em> ] For all that had been listened to was the charge of the accusers, who, leaving out all mention of the real reason of their charge, viz., that they had lost a source of money-making, put forward the plea that the missionaries were disturbers of public law and order. The crowd shouted with the accusers, and the magistrates, forgetting their position, joined with the mob (Act 16:22<\/span>) in the assault on the Apostles.<\/p>\n being Romans<\/em> ] The Greek is more full= men that are Romans<\/em>, (so R. V.<\/em>) and is in marked contrast with the charge of the accusers, which ran, “These men, being Jews.” The laws which had been violated by this act were the Lex Valeria<\/em> (b.c. 508) and the Lex Porcia<\/em> (b.c. 300). On the outrage, compare Cicero’s language in the Verrine orations (v. 66), ‘Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum, scelus verberari<\/em>, prope parricidium necari.’<\/p>\n thrust us out privily<\/em> ] The Apostle would say: let our dismissal from prison be as widely published as was our previous punishment.<\/p>\n They have beaten us openly uncondemned – <\/B>There are three aggravating circumstances mentioned, of which Paul complains:<\/P> (1) That they had been beaten contrary to the Roman laws.<\/P> (2) That it had been public; the disgrace had been in the presence of the people, and the reparation ought to be as public.<\/P> (3) That it had been done without a trial, and while they were uncondemned, and therefore the magistrates ought themselves to come and release them, and thus publicly acknowledge their error. Paul knew the privileges of a Roman citizen, and at proper times, when the interests of justice and religion required it, he did not hesitate to assert them. In all this, he understood and accorded with the Roman laws. The Valerian law declared that if a citizen appealed from the magistrate to the people, it should not be lawful for magistrate to beat him with rods, or to behead him (Plutarch, Life of P. Valerius Publicola; Livy, ii. 8). By the Porcian law it was expressly forbidden that a citizen should be beaten (Livy, iv. 9). Cicero says that the body of every Roman citizen was inviolable. The Porcian law, he adds, has removed the rod from the body of every Roman citizen. And in his celebrated oration against Verres, he says, A Roman citizen was beaten with rods in the forum, O judges; where, in the meantime, no groan, no other voice of this unhappy man, was heard except the cry, I am a Roman citizen! Take away this hope, he says, take away this defense from the Roman citizens, let there be no protection in the cry I am a Roman citizen, and the praetor can with impunity inflict any punishment on him who declares himself a citizen of Rome, etc.<\/P> Being Romans – <\/B>Being Romans, or having the privilege of Roman citizens. They were born Jews, but they claimed that they were Roman citizens, and had a right to the privileges of citizenship. On the ground of this claim, and the reason why Paul claimed to be a Roman citizen, see the notes on Act 22:28<\/span>.<\/P> Privily – <\/B>Privately. The release should be as public as the unjust act of imprisonment. As they have publicly attempted to disgrace us, so they should as publicly acquit us. This was a matter of mere justice; and as it was of great importance to their character and success, they insisted on it.<\/P> Nay, verily; but let them come … – <\/B>It was proper that they should be required to do this:<\/P> (1) Because they had been illegally imprisoned, and the injustice of the magistrates should be acknowledged.<\/P> (2) Because the Roman laws had been violated, and the majesty of the Roman people insulted, and honor should be done to the laws.<\/P> (3) Because injustice had been done to Paul and Silas, and they had a right to demand just treatment and protection.<\/P> (4) Because such a public act on the part of the magistrates would strengthen the young converts, and show them that the apostles were not guilty of a violation of the laws.<\/P> (5) Because it would tend to the honor and to the furtherance of religion. It would be a public acknowledgement of their innocence, and would go far toward lending to them the sanction of the laws as religious teachers. We may learn from this also:<\/P> (1) That though Christianity requires meekness in the reception of injuries, yet that there are occasions on which Christians may insist on their rights according to the laws. Compare Joh 18:23<\/span>.<\/P> (2) That this is to be done particularly where the honor of religion is concerned, and where by it the gospel will be promoted. A Christian may bear much as a man in a private capacity, and may submit, without any effort to seek reparation; but where the honor of the gospel is concerned; where submission, without any effort to obtain justice, might be followed by disgrace to the cause of religion, a higher obligation may require him to seek a vindication of his character, and to claim the protection of the laws. His name, and character, and influence belong to the church. The laws are designed as a protection to an injured name, or of violated property and rights, and of an endangered life. And when that protection can be had only by an appeal to the laws, such an appeal, as in the case of Paul and Silas, is neither vindictive nor improper. My private interests I may sacrifice, if I choose; my public name, and character, and principles belong to the church and the world, and the laws, if necessary, may be called in for their protection.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 37. They have beaten us openly – being Romans<\/B><\/I>] St. Paul well knew the Roman laws; and on their violation by the magistrates he pleads<\/I>. The Valerian<\/I> law forbade any Roman citizen to be bound<\/I>. The Porcian<\/I> law forbade any to be beaten with rods<\/I>. “Poreia lex virgas<\/I> ab omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit.” And by the same law the liberty of a Roman citizen was never put in the power of the lictor<\/I>. “Porcia lex libertatem<\/I> civium lictori eripuit.” See CICERO, Orat<\/I>. pro Rabirio<\/I>. Hence, as the same author observes, In<\/I> Verrem<\/I>, Orat. 5: “Facinus est vinciri<\/I> civem Romanum, scelus verberari<\/I>.” It is a transgression of the law to bind a Roman citizen: it is wickedness to scourge him. And the illegality of the proceedings of these magistrates was farther evident in their condemning and punishing them unheard<\/I>. This was a gross violation of a common maxim in the Roman law. Causa cognita, possunt multi<\/I> absolvi; incognita, nemo condemnari potest<\/I>. Cicero. “Many who are accused of evil may be absolved, when the cause is heard<\/I>; but unheard<\/I>, no man can be condemned.” Every principle of the law of nature and the law of nations was violated in the treatment these holy men met with from the unprincipled magistrates of this city.<\/P> <\/P> Let them come themselves and fetch us out.<\/B><\/I>] The apostles were determined that the magistrates should be humbled for their illegal proceedings; and that the people at large might see that they had been unjustly condemned, and that the majesty of the Roman people was insulted by the treatment they had received.<\/P> <\/p>\n Paul said unto them, the officers who were sent to the prison with the message about their liberty. <\/P> They have beaten us; the magistrates, who commanded them to be beaten, are justly charged with the beating of them, as if they had themselves done it. <\/P> Openly; it was no small aggravation of their injustice, and these holy mens sufferings, that they had, for the greater spite unto them, openly scourged them. <\/P> Uncondemned; for they were not tried, or permitted to speak for themselves. <\/P> Being Romans; having the privilege of Roman citizens, which was sometimes given to whole communities. Now such by their laws might not be bound, much less beaten, (and least of all uncondemned), without the consent of the Romans. <\/P> Let them come themselves and fetch us out; this the apostle stands upon, not so much for his own, as for the gospels sake, that it might not be noised abroad, that the preachers of it were wicked and vile men, and did deserve such ignominious punishment. Though they were as innocent as doves, it became them also to be as wise as serpents. <\/P> <\/p>\n 37. Paul said unto them<\/B>to thesergeants who had entered the prison along with the jailer, that theymight be able to report that the men had departed. <\/P> They have beaten usopenly<\/B>The publicity<\/I> of the injury done them, exposingtheir naked and bleeding bodies to the rude populace, was evidentlythe most stinging feature of it to the apostle’s delicate feeling,and to this accordingly he alludes to the Thessalonians, probably ayear after: “Even after we had suffered before, and wereshamefully entreated<\/I> (or ‘insulted’) as ye know at Philippi”(1Th 2:2<\/span>). <\/P> uncondemned<\/B>unconvictedon trial. <\/P> being Romans<\/B>(See on Ac22:28<\/span>). <\/P> and cast us into prison<\/B>bothillegal. Of Silas’ citizenship, if meant to be included, we knownothing. <\/P> and now do they thrust usout<\/B>hurry us outsee Mr9:38<\/span>, Greek.<\/I> <\/P> privily?<\/B>Mark theintended contrast between the public<\/I> insult they had inflictedand the private<\/I> way in which they ordered them to be off. <\/P> nay verily<\/B>no, indeed. <\/P> but let them come themselvesand fetch us out<\/B>by open and formal act, equivalent to a publicdeclaration of their innocence.<\/P><\/p>\n But Paul said unto them<\/strong>,…. The sergeants, who were present when the jailer reported to Paul the message they came with from the magistrates; though the Syriac version reads in the singular number, “Paul said to him”, to the jailer:<\/p>\n they have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison<\/strong>; what the magistrates ordered to be done to them, is reckoned all one as if they had done it themselves; and which was done “openly”, before all the people, in the most public manner; to their great reproach, being put to open shame, as if they had been the most notorious malefactors living; when they were “uncondemned”, had done nothing worthy of condemnation, being innocent and without fault, as the Syriac and Ethiopic versions render the word; nor was their cause heard, or they suffered to make any defence for themselves; and what was an aggravation of all this, that this was done in a Roman colony, and by Roman magistrates; and to persons that were Romans, at least one of them, Paul, who was of the city of Tarsus: for, according to the Porcian and Sempronian laws, a Roman citizen might neither be bound nor beaten n; but these magistrates, not content to beat Paul and Silas, without knowing the truth of their case, had cast them into prison as malefactors, and for further punishment:<\/p>\n and now do they thrust us out privily? nay, verily<\/strong>; or so it shall not be: this shows, that the apostle was acquainted with the Roman laws, as well as with the rites and customs of the Jews; and acted the wise and prudent, as well as the honest and harmless part; and this he did, not so much for the honour of the Roman name, as for the honour of the Christian name; for he considered, that should he and his companion go out of the prison in such a private manner, it might be taken for granted, that they had been guilty of some notorious offence, and had justly suffered the punishment of the law for it, which would have been a reproach to Christianity, and a scandal to the Gospel: wherefore the apostle refuses to go out in this manner, adding,<\/p>\n but let them come themselves, and fetch us out<\/strong>; that by so doing, they might own the illegality of their proceedings, and declare the innocence of the apostles.<\/p>\n n Cicero orat. 10. in Verrem, l. 5. p. 603. & orat. 18. pro Rabirio, p. 714.<\/p>\n Unto them <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The lictors by the jailor. The reply of Paul is a marvel of brevity and energy, almost every word has a separate indictment showing the utter illegality of the whole proceeding.<\/P> They have beaten us <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb to flay, to skin, to smite. The Lex Valeria<\/I> B.C. 509 and the Lex Poscia<\/I> B.C. 248 made it a crime to inflict blows on a Roman citizen. Cicero says, “To fetter a Roman citizen was a crime, to scourge him a scandal, to slay him–parricide.” Claudius had “deprived the city of Rhodes of its freedom for having crucified some citizen of Rome” (Rackham).<\/P> Publicly <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). This added insult to injury. Common adverb (<\/SPAN><\/span>) supplied with adjective, associative instrumental case, opposed to <\/SPAN><\/span> or ‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>, Ac 20:20<\/span>)<\/P> Uncondemned <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). This same verbal adjective from –<\/SPAN><\/span> with <\/SPAN><\/span> privative is used by Paul in 22:25<\/span> and nowhere else in the N.T. Rare in late Greek like <\/SPAN><\/span>, but in late Koine<\/I> (papyri, inscriptions). The meaning is clearly “without being tried.” Paul and Silas were not given a chance to make a defence. They were sentenced unheard (25:16<\/span>). Even slaves in Roman law had a right to be heard.<\/P> Men that are Romans <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The praetors did not know, of course, that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens any more than Lysias knew it in Ac 22:27<\/span>. Paul’s claim is not challenged in either instance. It was a capital offence to make a false claim to Roman citizenship.<\/P> Have cast us into prison <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Second aorist active indicative of <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb, with first aorist ending as often in the Koine<\/I> (–<\/SPAN><\/span>, not –<\/SPAN><\/span>). This was the climax, treating them as criminals.<\/P> And now privily <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Paul balances their recent conduct with the former.<\/P> Nay verily, but <\/B> ( , <\/SPAN><\/span>). No indeed! It is the use of <\/SPAN><\/span> so common in answers (+<\/SPAN><\/span>) as in Mt 27:23<\/span>. <\/SPAN><\/span> gives the sharp alternative.<\/P> Themselves <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). As a public acknowledgment that they had wronged and mistreated Paul and Silas. Let them come themselves and lead us out (<\/SPAN><\/span>, third person plural second aorist active imperative of <\/SPAN><\/span>). It was a bitter pill to the proud praetors. <\/P> <\/p>\n They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men that are Romans. Hackett remarks that “almost every word in this reply contains a distinct allegation. It would be difficult to find or frame a sentence superior to it in point of energetic brevity.” Cicero in his oration against Verres relates that there was a Roman citizen scourged at Messina; and that in the midst of the noise of the rods, nothing was heard from him but the words, “I am a Roman citizen.” He says : “It is a dreadful deed to bind a Roman citizen; it is a crime to scourge him; it is almost parricide to put him to death.”<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) But Paul said unto them,”<\/strong> (ho de Paulos ephe pros autos) “Then Paul replied to them” Paul responded to their method of proposed release or liberationfor him and Silas as follows:<\/p>\n 2) “They have beaten us openly uncondemned,”<\/strong> (deirantes hemas demosia akatkritous) “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned,” without a trial or examination of charges leveled against us, Act 16:22-24<\/span>. Paul demanded a reasonable reparation from the magistrates, to strengthen the reputation of the Philippian converts.<\/p>\n 3) “Being Romans,”<\/strong> (anthropous hromaious huparchotas) “As responsible men who exist as Romans,” who are Roman citizens, the magic word; For to bind a Roman citizen was an outrage, and to scourge or whip him publicly, was a crime, Act 22:25-26<\/span>. It appears from this that both Paul and Silas were Romans.<\/p>\n 4) “And have cast us into prison;”<\/strong> (ebalon eis phulaken) “They threw us unceremoniously into prison,” uncondemned, illegally without a fair or honest forum, or public hearing of any kind, a humiliating experience of which he later wrote to the Thessalonian brethren, 1Th 2:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n 5) “And now do they thrust us out privily?”<\/strong> (kai nun lathra hemas ekballousin) “And now, and for hereafter, do they secretly want to expel us?” Without letting the general public know about the issues at stake? To leave a blight on the reputation of other believers? Paul looked on the welfare of others after him, Php_2:4; Rom 15:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n 6) “But let them come themselves,” <\/strong>(ou gar alla elthontes autoi) “No indeed (at this point, under these conditions) we will not go, but instead let them come themselves,” let them publicly admit and announce their illegal wrong, Rom 14:11-12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 7) “And fetch us out.”<\/strong> (humas eksagagelosan) “Let them bring us out,” and release us before the general public, just as they publicly humiliated us, and beat us, without a legal trial, Gal 6:7-8<\/span>. Let them admit their illegal actions.<\/p>\n − <\/p>\n 38. They were afraid, because they were Romans. They are not once moved with the other point, because they had handled innocents cruelly without discretion; − (234) and yet that was the greater reproach. But because they did not fear that any man would punish them, they were not moved with God’s judgment. This is the cause that they do carelessly pass over that which was objected concerning injury done by them, only they are afraid of the officers − (235) of the Romans, and lest they should be beheaded for violating the liberty in the body of a citizen. They knew that this was death if any of the chief governors [prefects] should commit it, then what should become of the officers of one free city? − (236) Such is the fear of the wicked, because they have an amazed − (237) conscience before God, they do long time flatter themselves in all sins, until the punishment − (238) of men hang over their heads. − <\/p>\n (234) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Nulla interposita cognitione,” without any previous cognisance. <\/p>\n (235) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Securibus,” axes. <\/p>\n (236) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Coloniae,” colony. <\/p>\n (237) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Stupidam,” stupid, dull. <\/p>\n (238) − <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n Ultro,” vengeance. <\/p>\n (37) They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans.<\/strong>By the Lex Porcia (B.C. 247), Roman citizens were exempted from degrading punishment, such as that of scourging. It was the heaviest of all the charges brought by Cicero against Verres, the Governor of Sicily, that he had broken this law: Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum, scelus verberari<\/em> (Cic. in Verr.<\/em> v. 57). The words civis Romanus sum<\/em> acted almost like a charm in stopping the violence of provincial magistrates. St. Paul was a citizen by birth (see Note on Act. 22:28<\/span>), his father having probably been wealthy enough to buy the jus civitatis, <\/em>which brought with it commercial as well as personal privileges. It did not necessarily involve residence at Rome, but makes it probable that there were some points of contact with the imperial city. <\/p>\n There is something like a tone of irony in the being Romans, echoing, as it did, the very words of his accusers (Act. 16:21<\/span>). He, too, could stand on his rights as a citizen. The judges had not called on the prisoners for their defence, had not even questioned them. Even if they had not been citizens the trial was a flagrant breach of justice, and St. Paul wished to make the strategi<\/em> feel that it was so. Here we note that he seems to couple Silas with himself. It is possible, as the Latin form of his name, Silvanus (2Co. 1:19<\/span>; 1Th. 1:1<\/span>) suggests, that he also was a citizen of Rome, but St. Pauls mode of speech was natural enough, even on the assumption that he only could claim the privilege. We could hardly expect him to say with minute accuracy: They have beaten us<\/em> uncondemned, and I, for my part, am a Roman citizen.<\/p>\n 37<\/strong>. <\/strong> Beaten us Romans<\/strong> The memorable oratory of Cicero against Verres has universally diffused the knowledge of the fact that the exclamation! “I am a Roman citizen!” exempted the legal utterer from stripes, the punishment of slaves. By the Porcian law the body of a Roman citizen was sacred from stripes or the power of a lictor. <\/p>\n Uncondemned<\/strong> A second violation of law in the same act. And this fact of their allowing of no trial and no hearing deprived them of all plea of ignorance of Paul’s citizenship. It is a difficult question to decide how Paul, being a Jew, became a Roman; that is, endowed with the rights of a citizen of Rome. This right could at some periods be purchased, and some Jews did purchase it on account of its great protective convenience, but Paul “was freeborn,” Act 22:27-28<\/span>. Nor did it arise from his being a Tarsean, for in spite of that known fact (Act 21:39<\/span>) the chief captain was ready to scourge him. Tarsus was, by favour of Augustus, “a free city;” that is, under allegiance to Rome it was allowed to choose its own magistrates, pass its own laws, and govern itself; yet this did not endow its inhabitants individually with the immunities of a Roman citizen. His father was such a citizen, it may be, by purchase, or by some public service. There, indeed, is a third supposition. A slave, if emancipated within the city of Rome, became thereby a citizen. Now, as it happens, the Roman general, Cassius, offended at the hostility of Tarsus, sold a large number of the inhabitants into slavery at Rome, and of these Paul’s father may have been one. When Cassius was conquered at Philippi the enslaved Tarsians were emancipated, and thus Paul’s father may have been enfranchised, and Paul “free-born.”<\/p>\n ‘But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Romans, and have cast us into prison; and do they now cast us out privily? No, truly, but let them come themselves and bring us out.” ’<\/p>\n But Paul felt it necessary to stand his ground. They had, as Roman citizens, been illegally beaten, and made a public disgrace. If they departed like that the disgrace would still attach to the local church. This must now be put right for the sake of Lydia and the other believers. It should be noted that the charge against them included the fact that they had behaved badly towards Romans. Paul therefore wants it publicly known that they too were Romans, which makes the charge look foolish. This was the first time that charges had been brought against him by men claiming to be Romans which may explain his first use of the defence. It removed from the situation any suggestion of either him or the church being anti-Roman.<\/p>\n So he insisted that the magistrates themselves be made aware of the situation and themselves come to bring them out. Their imprisonment taken place publicly. Their release as innocent must be equally made public.<\/p>\n This emphasis on the fact that once the activities of Christians were properly considered they were constantly cleared of all charges of misconduct is one of the themes of Luke, partly, of course, because it was true.<\/p>\n Act 16:37<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>They have beaten up, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> The magistrates, in their treatment of Paul and Silas, had violated no less than three laws: First, in punishing them without a trial, which was not only an infringement of the Roman law, but of the law of nations. They had likewise violated the Valerian law, which forbad that a Roman citizen should be bound: and, thirdly, the Sempronian,or Porcian law, which forbad any man to punish a Roman citizen with rods. If it be asked, Why Paul and Silas did not plead their privilege before? We answer, That the hurry and noise of the execution prevented it; and perhaps, amidsuch a tumult, it might be apprehended that the people would have murdered them, if they had not been in some measure appeased by their sufferings; not to say how possible it is, that the plea, if made, might not be regarded, amid so riotous a mob. The circumstances of St. Paul, when he pleaded it, ch. 22; 25 were very different. If it be further asked, Why it was now so soon believed? It may be replied, not only that it was extremely hazardous to make such a claim falsely, (for Claudius punished it with death,) but also that there was a certain dignity in the manner in which St. Paulmade this plea, which added a sensible credibility to it; especially as they had now no further sufferings to apprehend, and as the earthquake, which might perhaps affect the whole city, seemed to have referred so evidently to their cas <\/p>\n Act 16:37<\/span> . ] to the jailor and the lictors;<\/em> the latter had thus in the meantime come themselves into the prison.<\/p>\n . . .] after they had beaten us publicly without judicial condemnation, us who are Romans<\/em> . This sets forth, in terse language precisely embracing the several elements, their treatment as an open violation, partly of the law of nature and nations in general ( , found neither in the LXX. or Apocrypha, nor in Greek writers), partly of the Roman law in particular. For exemption from the disgrace of being scourged by rods and whips was secured to every Roman citizen by the Lex Valeria<\/em> in the year 254 U.C. (Liv. ii. 8; Valer. Max. iv. 1; Dion. Hal. v. p. 292), and by the Lex Porcia<\/em> in the year 506 U.C. (Liv. x. 9; Cic. pro Rabir.<\/em> 4), before every Roman tribunal (comp. Euseb. H. E.<\/em> v. 1); therefore Cicero, in Verr.<\/em> v. 57, says of the exclamation, Civis Romanus sum:<\/em> “saepe multis in ultimis terris opem inter barbaros et salutem tulit.”<\/p>\n That Silas<\/em> was also a Roman citizen, is rightly inferred from the plural<\/em> form of expression, in which there is no reason to find a mere synecdoche. The distinction, which was implied in the bestowal of this privilege, cannot be adduced against the historical character of the narrative (Zeller), as we know not the occasion and circumstances of its acquisition. But how had Paul<\/em> (by his birth, Act 22:18<\/span> ). Roman citizenship?<\/em> Certainly not simply as a native of Tarsus. For Tarsus was neither a colonia<\/em> nor a municipium<\/em> , but an urbs libera<\/em> , to which the privilege of having governing authorities of its own, under the recognition, however, of the Roman supremacy, was given by Augustus after the civil war, as well as other privileges (Dio Chrys. II. p. 36, ed. Reiske), but not Roman citizenship; for this very fact would, least of all, have remained historically unknown, and acquaintance with the origin of the apostle from Tarsus would have protected him from the decree of scourging (see Act 21:29<\/span> ; comp. with Act 22:24<\/span> ff.). This much, therefore, only may be surely decided, that his father or a yet earlier ancestor had acquired the privilege of citizenship either as a reward of merit (Suet. Aug.<\/em> 47) or by purchase (Act 22:28<\/span> ; Dio Cass. lx. 17; Joseph. Bell. Jud.<\/em> ii. 14), and had transmitted it to the apostle. According to Zeller’s arbitrary preconceptions, the mention of the Roman citizenship here and in chap. 22. had only the unhistorical purpose in view “of recommending the apostle to the Romans as a native Roman.”<\/p>\n .] is indignantly opposed to : and now do they cast us out secretly?<\/em> The present<\/em> denotes the action as already begun (by the order given). Paul, however, for the honour of himself and his work, disdains this secret dismissal, that it might not appear<\/em> (and this the praetors intended!) that he and Silas had escaped<\/em> . On the previous day he had, on the contrary, disdained to avert the maltreatment by an appeal to his citizenship, see on Act 16:23<\/span> . The usual opinion is (so also de Wette) that the tumult in the forum had prevented him from asserting his citizenship. But it is obvious of itself that even the worst tumult, at Act 16:22<\/span> or Act 16:23<\/span> , would have admitted a “ Civis Romanus sum<\/em> ,” had Paul wished to make such an appeal.<\/p>\n ] not so, but<\/em> . It is to be analyzed thus: for<\/em> they are not<\/em> to cast us out secretly; on the contrary<\/em> ( ) they are, etc. specifies the reason why the preceding (indignant) question is put, and answers adversatively to the . See Hartung, Partikell.<\/em> II. p. 48; comp. Devar. p. 169, ed. Klotz; also Stallb. ad Protag.<\/em> p. 343 D, and the examples in Wetstein.<\/p>\n ] in their own persons<\/em> they are to bring us out.<\/p>\n 37 But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us<\/em> into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 37. They have beaten us<\/strong> ] A Roman, by the Valerian law, might not be bound; by the Porcian law, he might not be beaten or put to death, but by the Romans themselves, with the consent of the people. This privilege Paul pleads, and well he might; for the name of a Roman citizen was terrible to other nations. Though we may not return evil for evil, yet we may use all lawful means to right and secure ourselves.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And now do they thrust us out?<\/strong> ] Doctor Fuller the chancellor came to William Wolsey the martyr, whom he had imprisoned, and said, Thou dost much trouble my conscience; wherefore I pray thee depart, and rule thy tongue, so that I hear no more complaint of thee; and come to church when thou wilt, and if thou be complained of, so far as I may, I promise thee I will not hear of it. “Master Doctor,” quoth he, “I was brought hither by a law, and by a law I will be delivered,” &c. <\/p>\n 37.<\/strong> ] <\/strong> and <\/strong> are opposed: the injury<\/em> had been public<\/em> : the reparation<\/em> , not to Paul and Silas merely, but to the Gospel of which they were the heralds, must be public also<\/em> .<\/p>\n <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> .<\/strong> ] By the Lex Valeria, passed A.U.C. 254, and the Lex Porcia, A.U.C. 506, Roman citizens were exempted from stripes and torture: by the former, till an appeal to the people was decided, by the latter, absolutely. The following passages of Cicero illustrate our text: ‘Porcia lex virgas ab omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit.’ Pro Rabirio, c. 3. ‘Cdebatur virgis in medio foro Messan civis Romanus, judices: cum interea nullus gemitus, nulla vox alia istius miseri, inter dolorem crepitumque virgarum audiebatur, nisi hc: Civis Romanus sum.’ In Verrem, lib. v. 62, 63. ‘Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum; scelus verberari; prope parricidium, necari.’ Ibid. 66. Many others are given by Kuinoel, Biscoe, &c.<\/p>\n On the question, how Paul came to be born a Roman citizen<\/em> , see note on ch. Act 22:28<\/span> ; and on ., note, Act 16:20<\/span> .<\/p>\n Another irregularity had been committed by the duumviri, in scourging them uncondemned<\/em> : ‘causa cognita multi possunt absolvi: incognita quidem condemnari nemo potest.’ Cic. in Verr. i. 9. ‘Inauditi et indefensi tanquam innocenter perierant.’ Tac. Hist. ii. 10.<\/p>\n <\/strong> .<\/strong> ] are they thrusting us out?<\/strong> It does not follow, because has no such sense in ch. Act 9:40<\/span> , &c., that therefore it has not here. The circumstances must determine; which here seem to require this sense: the <\/strong> having a tinge of degradation in it, as if said of casting out that of which one is ashamed.<\/p>\n <\/strong> ] An elliptical answer to a question or position, the negative of which is self-evident: see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 48: Khner, Gramm. 741. 6: Hermann on Viger, p. 462. When it occurs with , it is best written without a stop between: cf. Aristoph. Ran. 58: , : ib. 193: (scil. ) , and 499, .<\/p>\n Mr. Humphry remarks, ‘St. Paul submitted to be scourged by his own countrymen (five times, 2Co 11:24 ): for, though he might have pleaded his privilege as a Roman, to the Jews he “became as a Jew,” observing their ceremonies, and submitting to their law.’<\/p>\n Act 16:37<\/span> . .: in flagrant violation of the Lex Valeria, B.C. 500, and the Lex Porcia B.C. 248; see also Cicero, In Verrem<\/em> , v., 57, 66, it was the weightiest charge brought by Cicero against Verres. To claim Roman citizenship falsely was punishable with death, Suet., Claud.<\/em> , xxv. : “uncondemned” gives a wrong idea, cf.<\/em> also Act 22:25<\/span> , although it is difficult to translate the word otherwise. The meaning is “without investigating our cause,” res incognita<\/em> , “causa cognita multi possunt absolvi; incognita quidem condemnari nemo potest,” Cicero, In Verrem<\/em> , i., 9, see also Wetstein, Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n