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.