Acts 16:37

But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(37) They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans.—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” (Cic. in Verr. v. 57). The words civis Romanus sum acted almost like a charm in stopping the violence of provincial magistrates. St. Paul was a citizen by birth (see Note on Acts 22:28), his father having probably been wealthy enough to buy the jus civitatis, 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.

There is something like a tone of irony in the “being Romans,” echoing, as it did, the very words of his accusers (Acts 16:21). 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 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 (2Corinthians 1:19; 1Thessalonians 1:1) suggests, that he also was a citizen of Rome, but St. Paul’s 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 uncondemned, and I, for my part, am a Roman citizen.”

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

16:35-40 Paul, though willing to suffer for the cause of Christ, and without any desire to avenge himself, did not choose to depart under the charge of having deserved wrongful punishment, and therefore required to be dismissed in an honourable manner. It was not a mere point of honour that the apostle stood upon, but justice, and not to himself so much as to his cause. And when proper apology is made, Christians should never express personal anger, nor insist too strictly upon personal amends. The Lord will make them more than conquerors in every conflict; instead of being cast down by their sufferings, they will become comforters of their brethren.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

They have beaten us openly uncondemned - There are three aggravating circumstances mentioned, of which Paul complains:

(1) That they had been beaten contrary to the Roman laws.

(2) that it had been public; the disgrace had been in the presence of the people, and the reparation ought to be as public.

(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."

Being Romans - 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 Acts 22:28.

Privily - 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.

Nay, verily; but let them come ... - It was proper that they should be required to do this:

(1) Because they had been illegally imprisoned, and the injustice of the magistrates should be acknowledged.

(2) because the Roman laws had been violated, and the majesty of the Roman people insulted, and honor should be done to the laws.

(3) because injustice had been done to Paul and Silas, and they had a right to demand just treatment and protection.

(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.

(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:

(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 John 18:23.

(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.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

37. Paul said unto them—to the sergeants who had entered the prison along with the jailer, that they might be able to report that the men had departed.

They have beaten us openly—The publicity of the injury done them, exposing their naked and bleeding bodies to the rude populace, was evidently the most stinging feature of it to the apostle's delicate feeling, and to this accordingly he alludes to the Thessalonians, probably a year after: "Even after we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated (or 'insulted') as ye know at Philippi" (1Th 2:2).

uncondemned—unconvicted on trial.

being Romans—(See on [2037]Ac 22:28).

and cast us into prison—both illegal. Of Silas' citizenship, if meant to be included, we know nothing.

and now do they thrust us out—hurry us out—see Mr 9:38, Greek.

privily?—Mark the intended contrast between the public insult they had inflicted and the private way in which they ordered them to be off.

nay verily—no, indeed.

but let them come themselves and fetch us out—by open and formal act, equivalent to a public declaration of their innocence.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Paul said unto them, the officers who were sent to the prison with the message about their liberty.

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.

Openly; it was no small aggravation of their injustice, and these holy men’s sufferings, that they had, for the greater spite unto them, openly scourged them.

Uncondemned; for they were not tried, or permitted to speak for themselves.

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.

Let them come themselves and fetch us out; this the apostle stands upon, not so much for his own, as for the gospel’s 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.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

But Paul said unto them,.... 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:

they have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; 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:

and now do they thrust us out privily? nay, verily; 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,

but let them come themselves, and fetch us out; that by so doing, they might own the illegality of their proceedings, and declare the innocence of the apostles.

(n) Cicero orat. 10. in Verrem, l. 5. p. 603. & orat. 18. pro Rabirio, p. 714.

Geneva Study Bible

{20} But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out.

(20) We must not render injury for injury, and yet nonetheless it is lawful for us to use such helps as God gives us, to bridle the outrageousness of the wicked, so that they do not hurt others in a similar way.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Acts 16:37. Πρὸς αὐτούς] to the jailor and the lictors; the latter had thus in the meantime come themselves into the prison.

δείραντες κ.τ.λ.] after they had beaten us publicly without judicial condemnation,—us who are Romans. 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 (ἀκατακρίτους, 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 in the year 254 U.C. (Liv. ii. 8; Valer. Max. iv. 1; Dion. Hal. v. p. 292), and by the Lex Porcia in the year 506 U.C. (Liv. x. 9; Cic. Proverbs Rabir. 4), before every Roman tribunal (comp. Euseb. H. E. v. 1); therefore Cicero, in Verr. v. 57, says of the exclamation, Civis Romanus sum: “saepe multis in ultimis terris opem inter barbaros et salutem tulit.”

That Silas was also a Roman citizen, is rightly inferred from the plural 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 (by his birth, Acts 22:18). Roman citizenship? Certainly not simply as a native of Tarsus. For Tarsus was neither a colonia nor a municipium, but an urbs libera, 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 Acts 21:29; comp. with Acts 22:24 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. 47) or by purchase (Acts 22:28; Dio Cass. lx. 17; Joseph. Bell. Jud. 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.”

καὶ νῦν λάθρα ἡμᾶς ἑκβάλλ.] is indignantly opposed to δείραντες ἡμᾶς δημοσίᾳ … ἔβαλον εἰς φυλακήν: and now do they cast us out secretly? The present 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 (and this the praetors intended!) that he and Silas had escaped. On the previous day he had, on the contrary, disdained to avert the maltreatment by an appeal to his citizenship, see on Acts 16:23. 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 Acts 16:22 or Acts 16:23, would have admitted a “Civis Romanus sum,” had Paul wished to make such an appeal.

οὐ γὰρ ἀλλά] not so, but. It is to be analyzed thus: for they are not to cast us out secretly; on the contrary (ἀλλά) they are, etc. γάρ specifies the reason why the preceding (indignant) question is put, and ἀλλά answers adversatively to the οὐ. See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 48; comp. Devar. p. 169, ed. Klotz; also Stallb. ad Protag. p. 343 D, and the examples in Wetstein.

αὐτοί] in their own persons they are to bring us out.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Acts 16:37. Δείραντες ἡμᾶς δ.: in flagrant violation of the Lex Valeria, B.C. 500, and the Lex Porcia B.C. 248; see also Cicero, In Verrem, v., 57, 66, it was the weightiest charge brought by Cicero against Verres. To claim Roman citizenship falsely was punishable with death, Suet., Claud., xxv.—ἀκατακρίτους: “uncondemned” gives a wrong idea, cf. also Acts 22:25, although it is difficult to translate the word otherwise. The meaning is “without investigating our cause,” res incognita, “causa cognita multi possunt absolvi; incognita quidem condemnari nemo potest,” Cicero, In Verrem, i., 9, see also Wetstein, in loco. The word is only found in N.T., but Blass takes it as = Attic, ἄκριτος, which might be sometimes used of a cause not yet tried. The rendering “uncondemned” implies that the flogging would have been legal after a fair trial, but it was illegal under any circumstances, Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 224.—δημοσίᾳ. contrasted with λάθρα, so a marked contrast between ἔβαλον εἰς φυλ. and ἐκβάλλουσιν.—Ῥωμαίους ὑπάρχοντας: “Roman citizens as we are,” the boast made by the masters of the girl, Acts 16:21. St. Paul, too, had his rights as a Roman citizen, see below on Acts 22:28. The antithesis is again marked in the Apostles’ assertion of their claim to courtesy as against the insolence of the prætors—they wish ἐκβάλλειν λάθρα; nay, but let them come in person (αὐτοί), and conduct us forth (ἐξαγαγέτωσαν).—οὐ γὰρ: non profecto; Blass, Grammatik, pp. 268, 269, “ut sæpe in responsis,” see also Page, in loco.—ἐξαγ.: not only his sense of justice, but the fact that the public disgrace to which they had been subjected would seriously impede the acceptance of the Gospel message, and perhaps raise a prejudice to the injury of his Philippian converts, would prompt Paul to demand at least this amount of reparation. Wetstein’s comments are well worth consulting.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

37. But Paul said unto them] 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.

They have beaten us openly] i.e. publicly. (So R. V.) For no doubt they had been lashed to the palus or public whipping-post in the sight of the people.

uncondemned] 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 (Acts 16:22) in the assault on the Apostles.

being Romans] The Greek is more full=men that are Romans, (so R. V.) 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 (b.c. 508) and the Lex Porcia (b.c. 300). On the outrage, compare Cicero’s language in the Verrine orations (v. 66), ‘Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum, scelus verberari, prope parricidium necari.’

thrust us out privily] The Apostle would say: let our dismissal from prison be as widely published as was our previous punishment.

Bengel's Gnomen

Acts 16:37. Ῥωμαίους, Romans) The citizens of Tarsus had the rights of Roman citizenship. Paul does not use the plea of his being a Roman as his principal argument, but for another reason, viz. to serve as a consideration which would have weight with his adversaries (κατʼ ἄνθρωπον). In the region which he now for the first time visited, a more specious persecution might have created the opinion that he was one of a wicked life, and this would have raised a prejudice in the way of the spreading of the Gospel. Wherefore Paul makes a solemn protestation once for all, that he is innocent. The innocence of the apostles was known at Jerusalem; for which reason they bore all things there in silence.—οὐ γὰρ) This expresses a degree of just ἀποτομία, severity, and sternness. For bitterness had no place in the apostle’s mind, especially at so gracious a season: Acts 16:26; Acts 16:33.—αὐτοὶ, themselves) not by the sergeants or attendants.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 37. - Publicly for openly A.V. δημοσίᾳ, Acts 18:28; Acts 20:20); men that are for being, A.V.; do they now cast for now do they thrust, A.V.; bring for fetch, A.V. Men that are Romans. We have exactly the same phrase in Acts 22:25, on a similar occasion, where also is the only other example of the word ἀκατάκριτος, uncondemned. Ἄκριτος with a like meaning ("untried," "without trial"), is common in classical Greek. The Latin phrase is indicta causa. By the Lex Valeria (A.U.C. 254), "No quis magistratus civem Romanum adversus provocationem necaret neve verberaret," every Roman citizen had a right to appeal (provocare) to the populace against any sentence of death or stripes pronounced by the consuls or any other magistrate; and by the Lex Porcia (A.U.C. 506), no Roman citizen could be scourged. Silas, it appears from the phrase, "us... men that are Romans," was also a civis Romanus. But nothing more is known about it. It does not appear why their exemption as Roman citizens was not made good before; but probably the magistrates refused to listen to any plea in their haste and violence. Acts 16:37

Vincent's Word Studies

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."