But as they stretched him forward with the thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood [by], Is it lawful for you to scourge a man [who is] a Roman and uncondemned?
Paul stands bound in the Roman barracks. He is stretched out for a flogging meant to force information out of him. One question from him stops it. The question turns on two words: "Roman citizen" and "uncondemned." Commentators have argued about it ever since. Was this faith using a lawful shield, or a servant of Christ stepping down from higher ground?
The commander ordered an examination. It was not a hearing but torture. One writer describes the practice, and the exemption Paul relied on.
The Romans used this punishment. They stripped the man, stretched him on a frame with cords or thongs, and beat him with a whip or a rod. From about B.C. 300 Roman citizens were exempt from scourging. Paul made use of this privilege when he was about to be "examined" under this punishment.
The officer had already broken the law before the first blow fell.
That was enough. The scourging never happened, because the centurion at once went and warned the chief captain of the privilege Paul enjoyed. He was a Roman. A Roman citizen had rights. No official in any part of the empire could trample on them and go unpunished… To bind a Roman uncondemned was unlawful. To scourge him was an outrageous offence.
Nobody checked whether he was telling the truth. Officials had a strong reason not to challenge such a claim.
You must remember this. To say you were a Roman when you were not was a capital offence against the government. Of course, they never failed to punish it with the greatest severity. To claim it untruly was too dangerous to be often attempted, as it exposed a man to the immediate risk of death.
Paul did not sue anyone or demand anything. He named a fact and left it there. The calm way he said it is part of the point.
Nothing can be calmer than the way he put it forward. There was no excitement. There was not even the smallest move toward insisting on his rights. People did insist on their rights back then, but that spirit has taken an extreme hold of men in our days.
The same writer draws the line between reminding a magistrate of his own law and taking a case to court.
The Roman officer had illegally overlooked a fact, and the apostle had every right to state it. This was in no way going to law. Need it be said that turning to the authorities in that way would hardly suit a follower and servant of Jesus? He in no way used the means a man would have used. It was the simplest possible statement of a fact that was serious in the eye of the law, and it had its effect.
Some readers fault Paul for not silently taking the lash. That criticism gets a blunt answer.
I think it is unhealthy fussiness, not true spiritual wisdom, that objects to such an act by the apostle. Everyone knows it is easy to be a martyr in theory. Those who are martyrs in theory are seldom martyrs in practice.
Others read the moment as a step down. One writer sets it beside Paul's earlier move of presenting himself as a Jew. He asks a question instead of passing sentence.
A little before, Paul had presented himself as a Jew to escape the prejudices of the Christians who clung to the Jewish law. Now he declares himself a Roman citizen to avoid unjust punishment from the Gentiles. It was not a sin, for he really was a Roman; but where was the power of the Spirit? Where is the Christian who would not do the same?
Others go further and say Paul was in a false position throughout this whole stretch of his story. And a contrast is often drawn with Philippi, where he was beaten first and named his citizenship afterwards.
Why did he not announce his Roman citizenship there? The power of the Spirit rested on him then; it is different here.
The escape had a longer consequence. One writer puts it in a single line:
At Philippi he was right; but his use of the plea that he was a Roman sent him to Rome.
The plea did more than spare him pain.
Paul's mention of his Roman citizenship stopped this. Under God's hand it became the occasion of his further testimony before the leading men of his nation.
- Bound — Scourging meant being stripped, tied to a frame and whipped. Roman citizens had long been exempt, and binding one before trial was already illegal.
- Question — Paul stopped it with a statement of fact, not a lawsuit; there was no heat in it and no demand for redress.
- Right — Nobody tested his claim. A false claim to Roman citizenship carried the death penalty.
- Debate — Commentators differ. Some call the criticism of Paul unhealthy fussiness, since martyrs in theory are rarely martyrs in practice. Others ask where the power of the Spirit was, and whether this was the highest ground open to him.
- Overruled — The plea saved him from the whip and led on toward Rome, and God used it to open the way for further testimony.
And the centurion, having heard it, went and reported it to the chiliarch, saying, What art thou going to do? for this man is a Roman.
Paul is tied up and ready for the lash when one question from him stops everything. His question rests on a fact the Roman officers had never checked, and commentators still ask whether he was right to use it.
The tribune, or chief captain, was not punishing Paul. He was hunting for evidence.
The unreasoning fury of the people, together with the use of the Hebrew language, plainly baffled the chief captain. Examination under the lash was the recognized way of forcing out evidence in those days. Paul's mention of his Roman citizenship checked this. Under God's hand it became the occasion of Paul's further testimony before the leading men of his nation.
The centurion did not stop out of pity. He knew the law his commander was about to break.
Then he spoke. He asked a question whose importance he knew well, and the centurion saw it at once. "Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?" That was enough. The threatened flogging never happened, because the centurion went at once and warned the chief captain of the privilege Paul enjoyed. He was a Roman. Lysias checked the fact himself, and at once became afraid, because he had even bound him. A Roman citizen had rights that no official in any part of the empire could trample on and get away with it.
Paul offered no proof, and nobody demanded any.
Remember that to say you were a Roman, when you were not, was a capital offence against the government. Of course they never failed to punish it with the utmost severity. To claim it falsely was too dangerous to be often attempted, since it exposed a man to the immediate risk of death. So officials of the Roman empire rarely questioned such a claim.
Commentators differ here. One writer calls Paul's plea calm and natural, yet still asks whether it was the highest ground open to a Christian.
Paul turns to a very natural plea, to escape pain and shame... Nothing could be calmer than the way he put it forward. There was no excitement, and not even the smallest approach to the assertion of rights. That was not unknown then, but it has taken an extreme hold of people in our day... But was it the usual height of Christian truth on which the apostle stood? Where do we find anything close to it in his Epistles?
Another writer is blunter, and turns the question back on the reader.
A little before, Paul had presented himself as a Jew to escape the prejudices of Christians who clung to Jewish ways. Now he declares himself a Roman citizen to avoid unjust punishment from the Gentiles. It was not a sin, for he really was a Roman; but where was the power of the Spirit? Where is the Christian who would not do the same?
One writer draws a picture of the Church out of that one citizenship.
Paul's Roman citizenship was recognized without question, whatever the place in which he claimed it: Philippi or Jerusalem — it made no difference. The one Roman Empire linked together into one every Roman citizen in the whole Roman Empire... Even so, there is but one true Church of God, with the Lord Jesus Christ as its Head, and every true believer in the Lord Jesus... belongs to that Church, or Assembly of God, quite regardless of place and race and language.
One writer takes the centurion's warning to his commander and turns it toward everyone who follows Christ.
These are words a Roman centurion used to warn his chief captain not to make a serious mistake in his dealings with the prisoner Paul. But when we read this sentence we quickly realise these words apply to many things. For instance, our neighbours who reject Christ still hold us responsible for Christian conduct.
- Method. The flogging was not a punishment. It was the accepted way of forcing evidence out of a prisoner the commander could not understand.
- Privilege. One question from Paul exposed the officers' crime. No official could bind and flog an uncondemned Roman citizen and get away with it.
- Credibility. Nobody asked Paul for proof. A false claim to citizenship carried the death penalty.
- Debate. Commentators differ on whether Paul should have used the privilege. One calls his plea calm and natural. Another asks where the power of the Spirit was, then admits most Christians would do the same.
- Outcome. Under God's hand, the stopped flogging opened the way to Paul's next testimony, before the leaders of his own nation.
And the chiliarch coming up said to him, Tell me, Art *thou* a Roman? And he said, Yes.
Soldiers had tied Paul up for a flogging, meant to force the truth out of him. One question from the commanding officer stopped it, and Paul's one-word answer still raises a question of its own: should a servant of Christ have used it?
The officer's alarm was not an overreaction. Roman law gave citizens protections no local commander could ignore.
Lysias asked Paul himself, and once he knew the fact he became afraid, because he had even bound him. A Roman citizen had rights that no official anywhere in the empire could trample on and go unpunished. Officials everywhere had grown more careful, above all since Cicero's famous prosecution of Verres. To tie up a Roman who had not been condemned was against the law; to flog him was a serious crime.
Nobody asked Paul for proof. Paul, for his part, only stated a fact.
The Roman officer had illegally overlooked a fact, and the apostle had every right to state it. He was not taking anyone to court… Remember that to say you were a Roman when you were not was a crime against the government punishable by death, and of course they always punished it with the utmost severity. Few men dared claim it falsely, since it put them in immediate danger of death. So officials of the Roman empire seldom questioned such a claim, especially when it came from a man who plainly had the character of the apostle.
The officer had bought what Paul owned from birth.
When Paul claimed to be a "Roman", he meant that he had this citizenship. He was a Jew and a citizen of Tarsus, yet he was a Roman citizen too. That gave him the right to take part in any assembly of Roman citizens, along with other privileges. As far as we know, Peter and John did not have this citizenship. The chief captain of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem told Paul that he had obtained his own citizenship "with a great sum." But Paul could reply, "But I was born free." It was a very great privilege to have this citizenship.
Commentators differ over whether Paul should have spoken at all. One writer sees no fault in it, and no wisdom in going looking for danger.
To me this looks like unhealthy fussiness, not true spiritual wisdom, when someone finds fault with what the apostle did. Everyone knows it is easy to be a martyr in theory, and that those who are martyrs in theory are seldom martyrs in practice… Should the guardians of the law break the law? Faith never teaches us to go looking for danger and trouble. It teaches us to walk the path of Christ in peace and thankfulness.
Another grants that it was no sin, and still asks what was lacking.
A little before this, Paul had presented himself as a Jew to escape the prejudices of Christians who clung to the law of Moses. Now he declares himself a Roman citizen to avoid unjust punishment from the Gentiles. It was not a sin, for he really was a Roman; but where was the power of the Spirit? Where is the Christian who would not do the same?
The writer who defends Paul also measures the moment against Paul's own letters.
But was this the usual height of Christian truth on which the apostle stood? Where do we find anything like it in his Epistles? And where does heavenly and suffering grace shine as it does in them? Present oneness with Christ wipes out all our natural conditions: Jew or Greek, Scythian or barbarian, slave or free — what does it matter? Christ is all, as He is in all who are His.
Paul later turned Roman citizenship into a picture of something better, writing to a city that was itself a colony of Rome.
The saints at Philippi would probably understand Paul's meaning better, and more easily, than we can, because Philippi was "a colony" of Rome. The word "colony" did not mean then what we think of today. It was a miniature Rome, a copy of the city planted in the province of Macedonia. Most of its people were men who had once been Roman soldiers, and they were all Roman citizens, with the special privileges that went with it… Paul uses this unique position of the city of Philippi as a figure of the heavenly citizenship of the Philippian saints.
- Bought. The officer bought his citizenship at a great price, and it still left him afraid the moment he learned whom he had bound.
- Born. Paul's standing cost him nothing; he had it from birth, and one honest word was enough to claim it.
- Protected. That birthright stopped the flogging at once. Roman law forbade tying up or flogging a citizen who had not been condemned.
- Debated. Writers differ. Some call it plain faith that avoids needless danger. Others ask where the power of the Spirit was.
- Surpassed. Oneness with Christ wipes out every natural distinction. The citizenship Paul held up to the Philippians was heavenly, not Roman.
And the chiliarch answered, *I*, for a great sum, bought this citizenship. And Paul said, But *I* was also [free] born.
The commander had ordered Paul tied up for flogging. Then he learns that his prisoner holds the same legal standing he once paid a fortune for. His boast about the price and Paul's answer about his birth turn the scene around. They also raise a question commentators still weigh: should a servant of Christ lean on such a privilege at all?
Claiming to be "a Roman" meant more than where Paul lived. One writer lists what that standing gave him, and names two apostles who did not share it.
When Paul claimed to be a "Roman," he meant that he had this citizenship. He was a Jew, and a citizen of Tarsus. He was also a Roman citizen. That gave him the right to take part in any assembly of Roman citizens, and other privileges too. As far as we know, Peter and John did not have this citizenship.
Paul owed his standing to his family, not to any effort of his own. The ESV renders his reply "a citizen by birth"; older translations read "free born."
He was brought up in Tarsus, in Cilicia, and his family seems to have been comfortable. His father was a Roman citizen, so he could pass this distinction on to his son. The chief captain said he had bought this honour at a great price. Paul replied that he was free born.
Once the commander checked the claim, he was the one in danger.
Lysias was now in difficulty; he had broken a Roman law. To expose a citizen to such humiliation was treason against the majesty of the Roman people. But the only way of saving Paul's life was to keep him in custody.
No one asked Paul for proof. The penalty for lying explains why.
Remember this: to say you were a Roman when you were not was a capital offence against the government. Rome of course always punished it with the greatest severity. Claiming it untruly was too dangerous to try often, since it put a man at real risk of death. So the officials of the Roman empire were rarely inclined to question such a claim.
How Paul said it matters as much as what he said.
Paul turns to a plea that is entirely natural, to escape pain and shame. It was a serious breach of law that he, a Roman and uncondemned, should be tied up for flogging. Nothing could be calmer than the way he put it forward. There was no excitement. There was not even the slightest approach to that insisting on one's rights which was known then too, but which has taken an extreme hold of people in our day.
Commentators differ over whether Paul should have used the privilege at all. One writer sees a shortfall — not sin, but something less than the power of the Spirit.
A little before, Paul had presented himself as a Jew to escape the prejudices of the Judaizing Christians. Now he declares himself a Roman citizen to avoid unjust punishment from the Gentiles. It was not a sin, for he really was a Roman; but where was the power of the Spirit? Where is the Christian who would not have done the same?
Others decline to criticise, treating it as a plain statement of fact rather than an appeal to law.
There the commander put himself in the wrong. Paul was not only a Jew but a citizen of Rome, and by a better title than the officer who ordered him bound. The apostle quietly states the fact. I dare not judge him, though some Christians would. He was clearly entitled to remind the guardians of the law that they were breaking it. He uses nothing further; he simply tells them how things stood.
Paul's own letters put "free born" on the losing side of the ledger.
He was of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee. He was a citizen of "no mean city." He was "free-born" — a much-envied position. He had sat at the feet of Gamaliel... Truly a record the flesh could be proud of! Yet it was all this, and more — "all things" — that the apostle had counted as loss. He still counted it loss, for the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus his Lord.
- Bought. The commander had citizenship the only way available to him — by paying a large sum for it.
- Born. Paul held the same standing and paid nothing. His father was already a citizen and passed it on.
- Shield. The claim stopped the whips at once. Flogging an uncondemned citizen was treason against Rome. False claims were so dangerous that officers rarely doubted a real one.
- Restraint. Paul made the point calmly and demanded nothing. Commentators differ on whether using the privilege at all was the highest ground for a servant of Christ.
- Loss. The birthright he pleaded here is the same "free-born" privilege he later counted as loss next to knowing Christ.
Immediately therefore those who were going to examine him left him, and the chiliarch also was afraid when he ascertained that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.
The ropes were already on Paul, and the beating was about to begin. One sentence from the prisoner stopped it all, and left the officer in charge afraid.
The flogging was not a punishment. It was a way to force information out of a prisoner. Roman law protected its own citizens from this. The officer had broken that law twice: first by tying Paul up, then by ordering the beating.
He decided, without talking to Paul any further, to have him flogged. He hoped something would come out of the victim to throw light on the matter… Paul was tied up with straps for that purpose. Then he spoke. He asked a question, and he knew well how much it mattered. The centurion saw it at once. "Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and has not been condemned?" That was enough. The flogging never happened, because the centurion went straight to his commander, Lysias, and warned him of the privilege Paul held. He was a Roman. Lysias found this out by asking in person, and at once he became afraid, because he had even tied him up. A Roman citizen had rights, and no official anywhere in the empire could trample on them without consequences… To tie up a Roman who had not been condemned was unlawful. To flog him was a serious offence.
Paul's word alone settled it. Nobody asked him for proof.
Remember this: to say you were a Roman when you were not was a crime against the government that carried the death penalty. Of course they always punished it in the harshest way. Claiming it falsely was too dangerous to be tried often. It put a man in real danger of death. So Roman officials rarely questioned such a claim. They questioned it even less when the man making it was plainly a person like the apostle, however little they knew of him.
The fear did not set Paul free. The officer had his own position to protect.
Paul quietly makes this fact known, and those who were about to flog him withdraw. The commanding officer was afraid because he had bound him. But his own authority was caught up in it, so he leaves him bound. The next day he unties him and brings him before the Jewish council, the Sanhedrin.
Paul could have pressed the officer over the mistake. He never did.
The apostle asks for nothing more. He was as far as possible from wanting, or even thinking of, punishing the man for the mistake he had made. That would clearly have been a departure from grace.
Commentators differ here. Some see the appeal to Rome as falling below Paul's usual walk of faith.
A little earlier, Paul had presented himself as a Jew to escape the prejudices of Christians who still clung to the Jewish law. Now he declares himself a Roman citizen to avoid unjust punishment from the Gentiles. It was not a sin, for he really was a Roman. But where was the power of the Spirit? Where is the Christian who would not do the same?
Others answer that faith is not obliged to walk into avoidable suffering.
To my mind, objecting to what the apostle did here is unhealthy fussiness, not true spiritual wisdom. Everyone knows it is easy to be a martyr in theory, and that those who are martyrs in theory are seldom martyrs in practice… Should the guardians of the law break the law? Faith never teaches anyone to go looking for danger and trouble. It teaches us to walk the path of Christ in peace and thankfulness.
Whatever the verdict on Paul's plea, God stood over the whole scene.
God knows how to make the anger of man praise Him, and how to hold back the rest of that anger. He also knows how to overrule any mistake His servants make. He can close one line of service to them and open another, which may in the end prove even more important. It was Paul's imprisonment that led him to write those inspired letters, which have built up the church for nineteen centuries.
- Unlawful — Tying up a Roman who had not been condemned was an offence. Flogging him was worse. The officer had done both.
- Unquestioned — A false claim to citizenship could cost a man his life. So officials rarely doubted it, and one sentence was enough.
- Unreleased — The officer was afraid, yet kept Paul bound; his own authority was at stake.
- Unavenged — Paul had grounds to press the mistake and never used them. That restraint is grace.
- Unhindered — Commentators differ over Paul's plea. They agree that God overrules the mistakes of His servants: the chains produced the letters.