How was Paul a Roman citizen?

Ignorance could not have been successfully charged against Paul. He was brought up in Tarsus, Cilicia, in good circumstances apparently, for his father being a Roman citizen was able to pass on this distinction to his son. When the chief captain, mentioned in Acts 22:28, exclaimed that with a great price he had bought this honour, Paul replied that he was free born.

We shall see how everything in Paul’s life was planned and worked out by divine wisdom. It is only as we read the record carefully that this is apparent. Saul tells us himself how he was separated from his mother’s womb and called by God’s grace, that God’s Son might be revealed in him, and that he should carry the gospel of the grace of God to the Gentiles. He was specially chosen of the Lord to be His servant, and this was marked in his very birth. He was born in Tarsus, in the province of Cilicia, in what we now call Asia Minor. We gather that his father was a man of some position, for he was a Roman citizen, which carried the same citizenship for his son. He could tell the Chief Captain at Jerusalem that he was freeborn, and not like the Captain, who bought the privilege and prestige of being a Roman citizen by the payment of a great sum. That his father could send his son to Jerusalem to be brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, strengthens the supposition that his family was of some standing something like a family in the present day who can afford to send their sons to be educated at some University. Of the Jewish apostles it could be recorded that they were “ignorant and unlearned men,” but this could not be said of Saul of Tarsus. He was learned. Evidently Gamaliel was a very prominent professor or rabbi, for there is a saying in the Talmud, “Since Rabban Gamaliel died, the glory of the law has ceased.”

Tarsus was the capital of Cilicia, and, as Paul says, "no mean city." It was renowned as a place of commerce, and as a seat of literature. The tutors of both Augustus and Tiberius were men of Tarsus. But it will be chiefly famous to all time as the birthplace and early residence of the great apostle.

But, though born in a Gentile city, he was "an Hebrew of the Hebrews." His father was of the tribe of Benjamin, and of the sect of the Pharisees, but settled at Tarsus. By some means he had acquired the Roman franchise, as his son could say to the chief captain, "But I was free-born." At Tarsus he learned the trade of tent-making. It was a wholesome custom among the Jews, to teach their sons some trade, though there might be little prospect of their depending upon it for their living.

When Paul claimed to be a 'Roman', he meant that he possessed this citizenship: and although he was a Jew, and a citizen of Tarsus, he was also a 'Roman citizen' and had the right to take part in any assembly (ek-klesia) of Roman citizens; as well as giving him other privileges. As far as we know Peter or John had not this citizenship, and the Chief Captain of the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem told Paul that he obtained this citizenship "with a great sum." But Paul could reply, "But I was born free." It was a very great privilege to have this citizenship.

In Acts 21:39, Paul tells the Chief Captain that he is "a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city." In Chapter 22:3, Paul tells the Jews, "I am verily a Jew, born in Tarsus." And in Acts 22:27 & 28 he tells the Chief Captain that he is a Roman, (free) born. In Sir William Ramsey's book, "St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen," he tells us some most interesting things about these three passages of Scripture. I will quote: "According to the law of his country, he (Paul) was first of all a Roman citizen. That character superseded all others before the law and in the general opinion of society; and placed him in the aristocracy of any provincial town. In the first century, when the citizenship was still closely guarded, (it) may be taken as a proof that his family was one of distinction and at least moderate wealth. …

"Paul was, in the second place, a 'Tarsian, a citizen of a distinguished city' (Acts 21:39; Acts 9:11). He was not merely a person born in Tarsus, owing to the accident of his family being there: he had a citizen's rights in Tarsus. … Roman (citizens) in a provincial city commonly filled the position of high-class citizens, and even had magistracies pressed upon them by general consent. Now, if Paul's family had merely emigrated to Tarsus from Judea some years before his birth, neither he nor his father would have been 'Tarsians,' but merely 'residents.'

"In the third place, Paul was 'a Hebrew sprung from Hebrews'. The expression is a remarkable one. It is not used to a Jewish audience, but to a Greek Church (Phil. 3:5), and it is similar to a familiar expression among the Greeks: 'a priest sprung from priests' is a term commonly applied to members of the great sacerdotal families which play so important a part in the society of Asian cities. He was a Jew at least as much as he was a Tarsian and a Roman, as regards his early surroundings; and it is obvious that the Jewish side of his nature and education proved infinitely the most important, as his character developed. But it is a too common error to ignore the other sides. Many … seem to think only of his words, 22:3, 'I am a Jew born in Tarsus,' and to forget that he said a moment before, 'I am a Jew, a Tarsian, a citizen of no mean city'. To the Hebrews he emphasises his Jewish character, and his birth in Tarsus is added as an accident: but to Claudius Lysias, a Greek-Roman, he emphasises his Tarsian citizenship. … Now there is no inconsistency between these descriptions of himself. Most of us have no difficulty in understanding that a Jew at the present day may be a thoroughly patriotic English citizen, and yet equally proud of his ancient and honourable origin. …

With foreigners the Romans were not so careful about being just, but Paul knew that it was not lawful for them to scourge a Roman citizen before he was found guilty: he appealed to the centurion on this ground, and the centurion reported this to the chief captain, who was surprised to hear that Paul was a Roman. He himself had had to pay dearly for his citizenship, he says. Paul answered that his own citizenship was acquired by birth. Thus the scourging, which would have accomplished nothing anyway, was avoided. The chief captain too was apprehensive about the fact of his having bound Paul without evidence of wrong-doing. However, at least Paul's safety was secured in this way.

The whole city being moved and the temple shut, the commander of the band comes to rescue Paul from the Jews who wished to kill him, taking him however into custody himself, for the Romans were used to these tumults, and heartily despised this nation beloved of God, but proud and degraded in their own condition. Nevertheless Paul commands the respect of the captain of the band by his manner of addressing him, and he permits him to speak to the people. To the chief captain Paul had spoken in Greek; but, always ready to win by the attentions of love, and especially when the loved though rebellious people were in question, he speaks to them in Hebrew; that is, in their ordinary language called Hebrew. He does not enlarge upon what the Lord said revealing Himself to him, but he gives them a particular account of his subsequent interview with Ananias, a faithful Jew and esteemed of all. He then enters on the point which necessarily characterised his position and his defence. Christ had appeared to him, saying, "They will not receive thy testimony at Jerusalem. I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles." Blessed be God! it is the truth; but why tell it to those very persons who, according to his own words, would not receive his testimony? The only thing which gave authority to such a mission was the Person of Jesus, and they did not believe in it.

In his testimony to the people the apostle laid stress in vain upon the Jewish piety of Ananias: genuine as it might be, it was but a broken reed. Nevertheless it was all, except his own. His discourse had but one effect — to bring out the violent and incorrigible hatred of this unhappy nation to every thought of grace in God, and the unbounded pride which indeed went before the fall that crushed them. The chief captain, seeing the violence of the people, and not at all understanding what was going on, with the haughty contempt of a Roman, orders Paul to be bound and scourged to make him confess what it meant. Now Paul was himself a Roman citizen, and born such, while the chief captain had purchased that freedom. Paul quietly makes this fact known, and they who were about to scourge him withdraw. The chief captain was afraid because he had bound him; but, as his authority was concerned in it, he leaves him bound. The next day he looses him and brings him before the council, or Sanhedrim, of the Jews. The people, not merely their rulers, had rejected grace.

This apostle was of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of pure descent, born at Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, a fact which gave to him the privilege of Roman citizenship. He was a disciple of Gamaliel and a strict Pharisee. He is first introduced to us as a young man, by name SAUL, at whose feet the witnesses who stoned Stephen laid their clothes. He became afterwards a violent persecutor of the saints, both of men and women, acting with great zeal, thinking he was doing God's service. His conversion as the effect of the Lord appearing to him was unique, and he was so completely changed that he became at once as bold for Christ as before he had been a persecutor of Christ in the persons of His saints. He immediately preached in the synagogues that Jesus was the Son of God. This was the distinctive point of his testimony. As the Jews sought his life at Damascus, he departed into Arabia, where doubtless he had deep exercise of heart and learnt more of the Lord.

The chief captain seems to have been ignorant of the Aramaic dialect. He gave orders that Paul be now removed into the castle itself, and be examined by scourging so that he might find out why they cried so against him. He was led away, and everything made ready for the cruel treatment, when the prisoner spoke: "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?" The centurion reported this to the chiliarch, the chief officer, who at once appeared on the scene. When he discovered that Paul was indeed a Roman by birth, they left their hands off of his person, and even the chiliarch was afraid. It was a highly illegal act to bind a Roman.

Not a few had pointed to this as a prominent failure in the career of the Apostle. According to these critics he made a grave mistake when he pleaded his Roman citizenship; he should have been silent and taken the unjust and cruel treatment without a murmur. If some of these harsh critics of the beloved Apostle were placed in the same condition, what would they do? As one has truly said: "It is easy to be a martyr in theory, and such are seldom martyrs in practice." He had a perfect right to tell the ignorant officers of the law who he was, and thus prevent a flagrant and cruel transgression of the law. And yet his conduct in Philippi was far different. Why did he not announce his Roman citizenship there? The power of the Spirit rested then upon him; it is different here.

It was quite enough. The moment the sound of "Gentiles" reached their ears, all their feelings of Jewish pride took fire, and at once they cried out, "Away with such a fellow from the earth! It is not fit that he should live." As they cried and cast off their clothes to throw dust into the air, the chiliarch commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging. There he put himself in the wrong; for Paul was not only a Jew but a citizen of Rome; and he was so by a better title than the commandant who thus ordered him to be bound. The apostle quietly states the fact. I dare not judge him, though there may be some Christians who would: he was clearly entitled to remind those that were the guardians of the law of their own transgression. He uses no means further, but merely tells them how things stood.

It appears to me that it is a morbid squeamishness rather than true spiritual wisdom that would cavil at such an act on the part of the apostle. Every one knows that it is easy to be a martyr in theory, and that those who are martyrs in theory are seldom so in practice. Here was one destined to torture, and really one of the most blessed witnesses of the Lord all through. Faith enables one to see things clearly. Should the guardians of law break the law? Faith never teaches one to court danger and difficulty, but to walk the path of Christ in peace and thankfulness. The Lord has not called His servants to desert it. I dare say some of us may have been struck with the fact that the Lord told them when they were persecuted in one city to flee to another. Assuredly this is not courting martyrdom, but the very reverse; and if the Lord Himself gave such a word to His servants in Judea and to His disciples (as is well known), it appears to me that it is at least hazardous without grave spiritual ground to face a danger so decided of condemning the guiltless who are entitled to our reverence. Here we have no sign of anything said by the Holy Ghost in the form of warning; and therefore, observe, it is not in the least degree a setting aside what is clearly laid down elsewhere. We have seen the Holy Ghost admonishing the apostle, when carried far in ardent love, and we can easily see that He had a sovereign title, both to guide and to correct — even if it were an apostle.

Nothing of the kind appears here. It was a fact which the Roman officer had overlooked illegally, and the apostle was entitled to state the fact. It was in no way a going to law. Need it be said that such a recourse to the powers that be would have little become a follower and servant of Jesus? It was in no way using such means as man would have employed; it was the simplest possible statement of a circumstance serious in the eye of the law, and it had its effect. "And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chiliarch, saying, Take heed what thou doest; for this man is a Roman." The chiliarch enquires accordingly. You must remember that to say you were a Roman, if you were not, was a capital offence against the government, which of course they never failed to visit with the severest punishment. To claim it untruly was too dangerous to be often attempted, as it exposed a man to the imminent risk of death. The officials of the Roman empire were rarely disposed therefore to question such a claim, especially where it was made by a man who, on the face of it, was such a character as the apostle, little as he might be known to any of them.