Acts 22

"Men, brethren, hear ye the account which I now give unto you," etc. Paul, being inclined to simplicity of heart, told the people, in order, how he had been chosen by the Lord when he was a persecutor of the church; he did not even fail to mention, with a broken heart, his crime relating to Stephen's blood; but he said that he had heard from the Lord, whom he could not oppose, that he would be sent to preach to the Gentiles. The Jews, who had been listening thus far, began to shout loudly to the tribune that a man trying to convince them of such things should be removed from the living.

"He spake unto them," it says, "in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you." Mark his address, at once so free from all flattery, and so expressive of meekness. For he says not, "Masters," nor "Lords," but, "Brethren," just the word they most liked: "I am no alien from you," he says, nor "against you." "Men," he says, "brethren, and fathers:" this, a term of honor, that of kindred. "Hear ye," says he, "my" - he says not, "teaching," nor "harangue," but, "my defence which I now make unto you." He puts himself in the posture of a suppliant.

The expression "fathers" is a sign of respect, and the expression "brethren" is an indication of kinship. Notice, his speech is both free from flattery and full of gentleness. He did not say "lords," but "brothers," which was especially pleasing to the people. I am not a stranger to you, he says, nor am I against you.

"And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence." Do you observe how the using the same tongue subdued them? In fact, they had a sort of awe for that language.

"And when they heard that he spoke… in the Hebrew language." You see how it affected them that he spoke the same language as they did — they had a certain kind of respect for that language.

Educated according to the truth, being a zealot of the paternal law. In Greek it is added more: Being a zealot of God, according to that in Romans: For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

He does not just say "in the school of Gamaliel" but "at the feet of Gamaliel." By these words, he shows his patient endurance, his loving attentiveness, his eagerness to listen and his tremendous reverence for the man.

He does not simply say "the law" but "the law of our fathers." This shows what type of person he had been, someone not ignorant of the law. Now this seems to be said for the benefit of his audience, but in fact, it is an accusation. For what if, with all his knowledge, he had been negligent? What if you have a thorough knowledge of the law but do not fulfill it? You do not love it, then, do you? [Paul] then states plainly that he was a zealot. So after he has delivered a great encomium about himself, he then extends this praise by adding, "just as all of you are today," and thus points out that what they are doing is not just for a human purpose but for their zeal for God. By bestowing this favor on them he also captures their understanding from the beginning.

"I am a man," he says, "which am a Jew:" which thing they liked most of all to hear; "born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia." That they may not again think him to be of another nation, he adds his religion: "but brought up in this city." He shows how great was his zeal for the worship, inasmuch as having left his native city, which was so great and so remote too, he chose to be brought up here for the Law's sake. See how from the beginning he attached himself to the law. But this he says, not only to defend himself to them, but to show that not by human intent was he led to the preaching of the Gospel, but by a Divine power: else, having been so educated, he would not have suddenly changed. For if indeed he had been one of the common order of men, it might have been reasonable to suspect this: but if he was of the number of those who were most of all bound by the law, it was not likely that he should change lightly, and without strong necessity. But perhaps some one may say: "To have been brought up here proves nothing: for what if thou camest here for the purpose of trading, or for some other cause?" Therefore he says, "at the feet of Gamaliel:" and not simply, "by Gamaliel," but "at his feet," showing his perseverance, his assiduity, his zeal for the hearing, and his great reverence for the man. "Taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers." Not simply, "the law," but "the law of the fathers;" showing that he was such from the beginning, and not merely one that knew the Law. All this seems indeed to be spoken on their side, but in fact it told against them, since he, knowing the law, forsook it. "Yes: but what if thou didst indeed know the law accurately, but dost not vindicate it, no, nor love it?" "Being a zealot," he adds: not simply one that knew it. Then, since it was a high encomium he had passed upon himself, he makes it theirs as well as his, adding, "As ye all are this day." For he shows that they act not from any human object, but from zeal for God; gratifying them, and preoccupying their minds, and getting a hold upon them in a way that did no harm.

With such a beginning he paves the way for his speech: "I," he says, "am a Jew." To hear this was most pleasant of all for them. But lest they again think that he is a Jew by nationality and not by faith, he adds: "born in Tarsus of Cilicia, brought up in this city." He shows his great devotion to the faith, such that, having left so far away and so glorious a homeland, he desired to study the law here. He does not simply say "under Gamaliel," but "at the feet of Gamaliel," indicating by this his constant, unrelenting diligence and attention and his great respect for this man. "Instructed in the ancestral law" – he was instructed not simply in the law, but in the ancestral law. So then, what of it? You have learned the law excellently, yet you do not defend it and do not love it?

He brings forward as witnesses the high priest and the elders. On the one hand, [Paul] makes himself their equal when he says, "I being a zealot just as you," but then he shows through his deeds that he was a greater zealot than they. "I wasn't waiting around," he says, "to arrest them, but I was even stirring up the priests and being sent abroad. And I wasn't after just men, as you are, but I sought out women too, put them in chains and even threw them into prison." This is irrefutable testimony. His Jewish credentials could not be disputed. Count the witnesses he brings forward: the body of elders, the high priest, those in the city. Note how his defense is not fearful but instructive rather and educational. Had his audience not been stone, they would have given heed to his words.

Then he brings forward proofs also, saying, "and I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders." "How does this appear?" As witnesses he brings forward the high-priest himself and the elders. He says indeed, "Being a zealot, as ye:" but he shows by his actions, that he went beyond them. "For I did not wait for an opportunity of seizing them: I both stirred up the priests, and undertook journeys: I did not confine my attacks, as ye did, to men, I extended them to women also: both binding, and casting into prisons both men and women."

This testimony is incontrovertible; the unbelief of the Jews is left without excuse. See how many witnesses he brings forward, the elders, the high-priest, and those in the city. Observe his defence, how it is not of cowardly fear for himself, that he pleads, no, but for teaching and indoctrination. For had not the hearers been stones, they would have felt the force of what he was saying. For up to this point he had themselves as witnesses.

"A zealot," he says. Since Paul had already spoken many praises of himself, he summarizes: "As you all are today." But pay attention to how many witnesses he appeals to: both the elders, and the high priest, and the citizens. Up to this point he has witnesses; but the subsequent content of the speech no longer finds witnesses.

Did you see how by his very experience in these things [Paul] has taught all of us that he deserved to be judged worthy of kindness from above and to be led to the path of truth? When God in his goodness sees a well-disposed soul led astray through ignorance, he does not disregard that soul or give it up to its own great recklessness, but he shows it all the good things that come from him and fails in nothing that pertains to our salvation, if we make ourselves worthy to reap abundantly the benefit of grace from above, as did that blessed apostle.

The rest, however, was without witnesses: "From whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me." Why then, these very things ought to have been held worthy of credit, from those that went before: otherwise he would not have undergone such a revolution. How if he is only making a fine story of it, say you? Answer me, Why did he suddenly fling away all this zeal? Because he looked for honor? And yet he got just the contrary. But an easy life, perhaps? No, nor that either. Well but something else? Why it is not in the power of thought to invent any other object. So then, leaving it to themselves to draw the inference, he narrates the facts. "As I came nigh," he says, "unto Damascus, about noonday." See how great was the excess of the light. What if he is only making a fine story, say you? Those who were with him are witnesses, who led him by the hand, who saw the light.

"But our friends lifted him up, for they were both more numerous and more powerful than the others; but, from their fear of God, they rather suffered themselves to be killed by an inferior force, than they would kill others. But when the evening came the priests shut up the temple, and we returned to the house of James, and spent the night there in prayer. Then before daylight we went down to Jericho, to the number of 5000 men. Then after three days one of the brethren came to us from Gamaliel, whom we mentioned before, bringing to us secret tidings that that enemy had received a commission from Caiaphas, the chief priest, that he should arrest all who believed in Jesus, and should go to Damascus with his letters, and that there also, employing the help of the unbelievers, he should make havoc among the faithful; and that he was hastening to Damascus chiefly on this account, because he believed that Peter had fled there. And about thirty days thereafter he stopped on his way while passing through Jericho going to Damascus. At that time we were absent, having gone out to the sepulchres of two brethren which were whitened of themselves every year, by which miracle the fury of many against us was restrained, because they saw that our brethren were had in remembrance before God."

So that they would not think this was an invention, Paul shows that he did everything out of love and zeal, and not out of vainglory.

Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? In Greek, in this place as well it is added: It is hard for you to kick against the goads.

"And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? And I answered, Who are Thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, Whom thou persecutest." Well is the name of the city (Nazareth) also added, that they might recognize the Person: moreover, the Apostles also spoke thus. And Himself bore witness, that they were persecuting Him.

But again, we allege the same against those who do not recognise Paul as an apostle: that they should either reject the other words of the Gospel which we have come to know through Luke alone, and not make use of them; or else, if they do receive all these, they must necessarily admit also that testimony concerning Paul, when he (Luke) tells us that the Lord spoke at first to him from heaven: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? I am Jesus Christ, whom thou persecutest;" and then to Ananias, saying regarding him: "Go thy way; for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name among the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him, from this time, how great things he must suffer for My name's sake." Those, therefore, who do not accept of him [asa teacher], who was chosen by God for this purpose, that he might boldly bear His name, as being sent to the forementioned nations, do despise the election of God, and separate themselves from the company of the apostles. For neither can they contend that Paul was no apostle, when he was chosen for this purpose; nor can they prove Luke guilty of falsehood, when he proclaims the truth to us with all diligence.

It ought not to be forgotten that in such a Gospel as this there is embraced every good deed that was done to Jesus; as, for example, the story of the woman who had been a prostitute and had repented, and who, having experienced a genuine recovery from her evil state, had grace to pour her ointment over Jesus so that every one in the house smelled the sweet savor. Hence, too, the words, "Wherever this gospel shall be preached among all the nations, there also this that she has done shall be spoken of, for a memorial of her." And it is clear that whatever is done to the disciples of Jesus is done to him. Pointing to those of them who met with kind treatment, [Jesus] says to those who were kind to them: "What you did to these, you did to me." So that every good deed we do to our neighbors is entered into the gospel, that gospel that is written on the heavenly tablets and read by all who are worthy of the knowledge of the whole of things. But on the other side, too, there is a part of the gospel that is for the condemnation of the doers of the evil deeds that have been done to Jesus. The treachery of Judas and the shouts of the wicked crowd when it said, "Away with such a one from the earth," and "Crucify him, crucify him," the mockings of those who crowned him with thorns, and everything of that kind, is included in all the Gospels. And as a consequence of this we see that everyone who betrays the disciples of Jesus is reckoned as betraying Jesus himself. To Saul, when still a persecutor it is said, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" and, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting." There are those who still have thorns with which they crown and dishonor Jesus, those, namely, who are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and though they have received the word of God, they do not bring it to perfection. We must beware, therefore, lest we also, by crowning Jesus with thorns of our own, should be entered in the gospel and read of in this character by those who come to know how Jesus, who is in all and is present in all rational and holy lives, is anointed with ointment, is entertained, is glorified, or how, on the other side, he is dishonored and mocked and beaten. All this had to be said; it is part of our demonstration that our good actions, and also the sins of those who stumble, are embodied in the gospel, either to everlasting life or to reproach and everlasting shame.

Paul, speaking of his deeds, says that his companions saw the light there some time ago, yet that they did not drink in the voice with their ears; but then, at the time when he fell blind, his companions are said also to have heard the voice. Thus the work of the narrator varies. But there is no doubt that it is necessary for both [passages] to harmonize; for then [according to Luke] they are said to have heard, to have received the sound, now [in Paul's own words] undoubtedly not to have heard. This will be a simple way of explanation: the voice is justly denied to have spoken since it was indistinct, nor is a thing believed to be given by speech when a person receiving it does not store it up in his understanding. He is stimulated so little on account of his doubting ear, and ambiguous noise strikes only the air. They are said at the same time thus to have heard, thus not to have heard. The one standpoint is of noise, the other standpoint is of true speech, and a single circumstance bears and bears again a twofold meaning.

They did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. Above, the story narrates about this vision that his companions stood stupefied, hearing indeed the voice, but seeing no one. Hence it is inferred that they heard the sound of a confused voice, but not the distinction of words.

And those who were with me indeed saw the light. And in Greek it is added more: And they were afraid.

[Daniel 10:7] "And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me saw it not; but an exceeding great terror fell upon them, and they fled away and hid themselves." The Apostle Paul had a similar experience in the Book of Acts, in that while the others could see nothing, he alone beheld the vision (Acts 22:6-9).

"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me." But in another place he says, "Hearing the voice, but seeing no man." It is not at variance: no, there were two voices, that of Paul and the Lord's voice: in that place, the writer means Paul's voice; as in fact Paul here adds, "The voice of Him that spake unto me. Seeing no man:" he does not say, that they did not see the light: but, "no man," that is, "none speaking." And good reason that it should be so, since it behooved him alone to have that voice vouchsafed unto him. For if indeed they also had heard it, the miracle would not have been so great. Since persons of grosser minds are persuaded more by sight, those saw the light, and were afraid. In fact, neither did the light take so much effect on them, as it did on him: for it even blinded his eyes: by that which befel him, God gave them also an opportunity of recovering their sight, if they had the mind. It seems to me at least, that their not believing was providentially ordered, that they might be unexceptionable witnesses.

This was done with purpose, since he alone was to hear that voice. And since rather ordinary people trust sight more, those who were with Saul only "saw the light and were filled with fear; but did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me." And the light produced such an effect not for them, but for Saul; therefore it deprived him of sight, and not them; but at the time when the light was poured out upon him, they too were allowed to look upon this light, if they wished. It seems to me, however, that they did not believe by a special Divine arrangement, so that they would be such witnesses of the event whom the Jews could not disbelieve.

"And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do." "Enter into the city," it says, "and there it shall be spoken to thee of all that is appointed for thee to do." Lo! again another witness.

Our Lord spoke humbly from above so that the leaders of his church would speak humbly. Now, if someone should ask, "How did our Lord speak humbly with Paul if Paul's eyes were seriously injured?" they should realize that this impairment did not [result] from our compassionate Lord, who spoke humbly there. Rather, [it was the result] of the intense light that shone radiantly there. This light was not a punishment that befell Paul on account of the things he had done. It injured him with the intensity of its rays, as he himself said, "When I arose, I could see nothing because of the brilliance of the light."

"And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus." See how great was the excess of the light.

It was of Him, too, that he had said in a previous passage: "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to the only God; " so that we might apply even the contrary qualities to the Son Himself-mortality, accessibility-of whom the apostle testifies that "He died according to the Scriptures," and that "He was seen by himself last of all," -by means, of course, of the light which was accessible, although it was not without imperilling his sight that he experienced that light. A like danger to which also befell Peter, and John, and James, (who confronted not the same light) without risking the loss of their reason and mind; and if they, who were unable to endure the glory of the Son, had only seen the Father, they must have died then and there: "For no man shall see God, and live.

"Those who were with me led me by the hand into Damascus." The mention of the city is fittingly added so that the Jews would know that Saul was a persecutor. Paul-Saul interweaves the testimonies of persons with the testimonies of circumstances, both those concerning himself and those concerning others; the witnesses are the priests, the elders, the companions. Facts are attested by facts, and not only by persons. The witnesses are Ananias, an outsider, and furthermore the very fact itself, that is, the recovery of sight.

"And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him." And see how unexceptionable he makes him also. "And one Ananias," he says, "a devout man according to the law," - so far is it from being anything alien! - "having a good report of all the Jews that dwelt there." "And I in the same hour received sight." Then follows the testimony borne by the facts. Observe how it is interwoven, of persons and facts; and the persons, both of their own and of aliens: the priests, the elders, and his fellow-travellers: the facts, what he did and what was done to him: and facts bear witness to facts, not persons only. Then Ananias, an alien; then the fact itself, the recovery of sight; then a great prophecy.

"And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know His will, and see That Just One." It is well said, "Of the fathers," to show that they were not Jews, but aliens from the law, and that it was not from zeal for the law that they were acting. "That thou shouldest know His will." Why then His will is this. See how in the form of narrative it is teaching. "And see That Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth." See how high he raises the fact! For the present he says no more than this: if He is Just, they are guilty.

He said beautifully: "The God of our fathers," in order to show that they are not Jews, but apostates from the law, and that they do not act out of zeal for God. "He saw the Righteous One." He speaks so directly and forcefully, because if Jesus is the Righteous One, then they are transgressors.

"For thou shall be His witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." "And hear the voice of His mouth." See how high he raises the fact! "For thou shall be His witness - for this, because thou wilt not betray the sight and hearing - both of what thou hast seen, and of what thou hast heard:" by means of both the senses he claims his faithfulness - "to all men."

For he did become a witness to Him, and a witness as it ought to be; by what he suffered, by what he did, and by what he said. Such witnesses ought we also to be, and not to betray the things we have been entrusted withal: I speak not only of doctrines, but also of the manner of life.

For observe: because he had seen, because he had heard, he bears witness to all men, and nothing hindered him. We too bear witness that there is a Resurrection and numberless good things: we are bound to bear witness of this to all men. "Yes, and we do bear witness," you will say, "and do believe." How; when ye act the contrary? Say now: if any one should call himself a Christian, and then having apostatized should hold with the Jews, would this testimony suffice? By no means: for men would desire the testimony which is borne by the actions. Just so, if we say that there is a Resurrection and numberless good things, and then despise those things and prefer the things here, who will believe us? Not what we say, but what we do, is what all men look to. "Thou shalt be a witness," it says, "unto all men:" not only to the friendly, but also to the unbelievers: for this is what witnesses are for; not to persuade those who know, but those who know not. Let us be trustworthy witnesses.

Because you will not betray nor forget what you have seen and heard. "What you have seen and heard." The Lord persuades Saul by means of both senses, that is, by means of sight and hearing. "Because you will be His witness before all people." Not before fellow countrymen only, but also before foreigners, because witnesses are witnesses precisely in order to testify not before those who know, but before those who do not know. But this is also a great prophecy; and look — it was fulfilled, because by his deeds, by his sufferings, by his words, Paul truly became a witness before all people.

Since sins are not remitted save in the baptism of the Church, he who admits a heretic to communion without baptism does two things against reason: he does not cleanse the heretics, and he befouls the Christians.

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on His name." Here it is a great thing he has uttered. For he said not, "Be baptized in His name:" but, "calling on the name of Christ." It shows that He is God: since it is not lawful to "call upon" any other, save God. Then he shows also, that he himself was not compelled: for, "I said," says he, "What must I do?" Nothing is left without witness: no; he brings forward the witness of a whole city, seeing they had beheld him led by the hand. But see the prophecy fulfilled. "To all men," it is said. For he did become a witness to Him, and a witness as it ought to be; by what he suffered, by what he did, and by what he said.

But it happened that when I was returning to Jerusalem and praying in the temple, I fell into a trance, and saw him. For the trance of the mind, some Codices have a mental ecstasy, others a fear, others an alienation. For what is called ecstasis in Greek is variously interpreted in Latin. This word was also used in the vision of Peter above, where he was being called forth to teach Cornelius. For an ecstasy fell upon him, and he saw the heavens opened. But the mind of the praying apostles was alienated, not from the lowly but to the heavenly, not to deviate, but to see.

"And when I was come again to Jerusalem," etc. How was it, that being a Jew, and there brought up and taught, he did not stay there? Nor did he abide there, unless he had a mind to furnish numberless occasions against him: everywhere just like an exile, fleeing about from place to place. "While I prayed in the temple," he says, "it came to pass that I was in a trance." To show that it was not simply a phantom of the imagination, therefore "while he prayed" the Lord stood by him. And he shows that it was not from fear of their dangers that he fled, but because they would "not receive" his "testimony." But why said he "They know I imprisoned?" Not to gainsay Christ, but because he wished to learn this which was so contrary to all reasonable expectation. Christ, however, did not teach him this, but only bade him depart, and he obeys: so obedient is he.

Then wherefore did the Providence of God order that he should go thither, and yet the Lord had said, "Get thee out quickly from Jerusalem?" That both their wickedness might be shown and Christ's prophecy made good, that they would not endure to hear him: and so that all might learn that he was ready to suffer all things, and that the event might be for the consolation of those in Judea: for there also the brethren were suffering many grievous evils.

"And when the blood of Thy martyr Stephen," etc. See where again his discourse terminates, namely, in the forcible main point: that it was he that persecuted, and not only persecuted but killed, nay, had he ten thousand hands would have used them all to kill Stephen. He reminded them of the murderous spirit heinously indulged by him and them. Then of course above all they would not endure him, since this convicted them; and truly the prophecy was having its fulfilment: great the zeal, vehement the accusation, and the Jews themselves witnesses of the truth of Christ!

But why said he "They know I imprisoned?" Not to gainsay Christ, but because he wished to learn this which was so contrary to all reasonable expectation. Christ, however, did not teach him this, but only bade him depart, and he obeys: so obedient is he.

Why did he say "it is known to them?" He said this not contradicting Christ, but wishing to understand such an incomprehensible thing. But Christ did not explain it to him, and only told him to go.

"And when the blood of Stephen was being shed." He reminded them of one cruel murder, when Stephen was reproving them at that time, and they could not endure it.

See how he thrusts himself into danger. I came, he says, after that vision, "to Jerusalem. I was in a trance," etc. Again, this is without witness: but observe, the witness follows from the result. He said, "They will not receive thy testimony:" they did not receive it. And yet from calculations of reason the surmise should have been this, that they would assuredly receive him. For I was the man that made war upon the Christians: so that they ought to have received him. Here he establishes two things: both that they are without excuse, since they persecuted him contrary to all likelihood or calculation of reason; and, that Christ was God, as prophesying things contrary to expectation, and as not looking to past things, but fore-knowing the things to come.

"And they lifted up their voices," it says, "and said, Away with him: it is not fit that this fellow should live." Nay, ye are the persons not fit to live; not he, who in everything obeys God. The Jews would not endure to hear out all his harangue, but excessively fired by their wrath, they shouted, it says, "Away with him; for it is not fit that he should live."

The words, "I will send thee to the Gentiles," were those at which the Jews took offence. That a word should come from heaven to Paul in the Temple, commanding him to leave the chosen people and the Holy City and go to the uncircumcised heathen, was a statement verging upon blasphemy. This admission they would regard as proof of Paul's apostasy from Moses. It implied that he regarded the heathen as standing upon the same plane as themselves. The thought roused all their native bigotry. Beyond "this word" they would not hear him, nor did they think that one who should so estimate the privileges and character of the Jews as compared with the Gentiles was fit to live.

As they were shouting, throwing off their cloaks, and throwing dust into the air. In the Lord's passion, the priest alone leaping from the throne tears his garments, because then the old priesthood was to be changed to the new. But now, because after the death of the apostles, the whole nation was to be stripped of the glory of the kingdom, all throw off their garments, and lift their clamor mixed with dust to heaven. According to what the Psalmist says: "The pride of those who hate you rises always" (Psalm 73).

"And as they cried out and threw off their garments," etc. As the Jews made an uproar and threw dust up into the sky, the tribune commanded Paul to be brought into the castle. While they whipped him to learn the cause of the uproar that had been stirred up, Paul said to the centurion that stood by him: "See if it is lawful for you to scourge a Roman that hath not been condemned. "Terrified by these words, he loosed him and put the imminent tortures on hold. On the next day, he ordered Paul and the council of the Jews to present themselves before him, wishing to know for what reason he had been handed over. Then Paul, looking on the crowd of the Jews, spoke thus.

"And shaking out their clothes," it says, "they threw dust into the air," to make insurrection more fierce, because they wished to frighten the governor. And observe; they do not say what the charge was, as in fact they had nothing to allege, but only think to strike terror by their shouting. "The tribune commanded," etc. and yet he ought to have learnt from the accusers, "wherefore they cried so against him."

Whereas both the tribune ought to have examined whether these things were so-yes, and the Jews themselves too-or, if they were not so, to have ordered him to be scourged, he "bade examine him by scourging, that he might know for what cause they so clamored against him." And yet he ought to have learnt from those clamorers, and to have asked whether they laid hold upon aught of the things spoken: instead of that, without more ado he indulges his arbitrary will and pleasure, and acts with a view to gratify them: for he did not look to this, how he should do a righteous thing, but only how he might stop their rage unrighteous as it was.

But since they were crying out, it was necessary to find out from them, to ask them what they found suspicious in Paul's words; but the tribune simply caters to those in power and acts to please them, because he was not concerned with how to act more justly, but with how to calm their anger, even though it was unjust.

However, the face cannot be designated as the right face and the left, but high rank can be either according to God or according to this world. Hence, it is as though the face were divided into the right cheek and the left, in order to signify that, whenever his becoming a Christian becomes an occasion of contempt in the case of any follower of Christ, he should be much more ready to be despised in his own person if he holds any of the honors of this world. Just as in the case of the apostle himself, when in his person people were persecuting the Christian denomination; if he then remained silent regarding the dignity which he held in the world, he would not have turned the other cheek to those who were striking him on the right cheek. But by saying, "I am a Roman citizen," he was not unprepared to have them despise in his person the thing that he deemed of least value, when in his person they had despised a name so precious and salutary. Did he thereby endure in any less degree the chains which it was not lawful to place on Roman citizens? Or did he blame anyone for this injustice? Even though some people spared him on account of the title of Roman citizen, he did not on that account fail to offer them something to strike, for he yearned to correct by his own patience the perversity of those whom he saw to be honoring in his person the left portion rather than the right. The one thing to be considered is the spirit of kindness and clemency with which he acted toward those from whom he was suffering the injuries.

"And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned?" Paul lied not, God forbid: for he was a Roman. If there was nothing else, he would have been afraid to pretend this, lest he should be found out, and suffer a worse punishment. And observe he does not say it peremptorily, but, "Is it lawful for you?" The charges brought are two, both its being without examination, and his being a Roman. They held this as a great privilege, at that time: for they say that it was only from the time of Hadrian that all were named Romans, but of old it was not so. He would have been contemptible had he been scourged: but as it is, he puts them into greater fear than they him.

Had they scourged him, they would also have dismissed the whole matter, or even have killed him; but as it is, the result is not so. See how God permits many good results to be brought about quite in a human way, both in the case of the Apostles and of the rest of mankind. Mark how they suspected the thing to be a pretext, and that in calling himself a Roman, Paul lied: perhaps surmising this from his poverty.

How does Paul say, "I am a man, a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia, not of an insignificant city," and shortly after, "If a man is a Roman and uncondemned," and the following? How, then, having said these things, and not at another time but at that very moment when he spoke those words, and to the very same hearers, does he say: "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned"? And when the tribune asks, "Are you a Roman?" he demonstrated that he was a Roman, and not merely saying it casually, but by appeal, because "I was born a citizen." From this above all it is clear that he spoke the truth. For if at one time he said he was from Tarsus and at another time a Roman, or spoke that to some hearers and this to others, one might reasonably say that the claim of being a Roman was perhaps fabricated, thinking to deceive those present into believing that he was from Tarsus. But he, saying that he was from Tarsus, if he were not most conscious of the truth for himself, would not have dared to declare to the same men that he was a Roman, and then to be about to be beaten. For it is clear that by denying him he not only did not free him from the blows, but made the punishment even more severe. And he faithfully related also the slanders against him by the Jews, that he is a deceiver, and a liar, and a sorcerer, which above all Paul strove to put away. Moreover the tribune, if he had not been convinced that he was a Roman, would not have ceased from whipping him, he would not have rescued him urgently from the Jews who were plotting against him. He would not have written on his behalf to Felix that he was a Roman, and that as a Roman he had been snatched from the plot of the Jews.

The Jews would not have brought him before the magistrates, inventing charges against him that did not exist, but from this very thing, if he lied in claiming to be a Roman, beginning their slander with that and concerning the other matters they would seem also to be telling the truth.

For the divine command made what seems shameful honorable. Thus the apostle called himself at one time a Pharisee and at another a Roman, not because he was afraid of death but because it was fair to do so in a fight. Likewise he appealed to Caesar upon learning of the Jews' plot against him. He sent his sister's son to the tribune to report the plots being hatched against him, not because he clung to this present life but in obedience to the divine law. For our Master certainly does not wish us to throw ourselves into obvious peril. This [Jesus] taught us not only with words but also through action, for more than once he avoided the murderous violence of the Jews.

"Is it lawful for you to scourge a Roman citizen, and uncondemned?" Paul did not lie in saying that he was a Roman, because his father, for the sake of status, had purchased this title with money, since those deemed worthy of being called by this name enjoyed great honor. Paul says this so that, in the event of his punishment, they would not begin to treat him with contempt. If they had punished him, they would have given the matter a different turn and killed him; but now, though for no other reason than the very fact that he was a Roman, they not only did not punish him but also released him. Paul identifies two offenses in his punishment: one — that they wanted to punish him without a trial, and the other — that they wanted to punish a Roman citizen; and therefore he struck even greater fear into them.

And Paul said: But I was born so. That is, in this I am more of a Roman than you because I did not buy the Roman name elsewhere, but I was born in their city.

I have obtained this citizenship for a great sum of money. Another edition indicates more clearly what he had said. The tribune said: Do you say so easily that you are a Roman citizen? For I know at what price I obtained this citizenship.

I acquired this city with a great sum of money. In Greek, for city it has πολιτείαν: which signifies rather civil society, that is, social interaction among citizens, or the administration of the republic, than city. For the tribune had not bought the Roman citizenship he possessed, but the partnership of the Roman commonwealth of which he was a participant. But Paul was even more a Roman citizen, because he had this not by purchase, but by birth.

"When the centurion heard that, he went and told the tribune, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. Then the tribune came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the tribune answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the tribune also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him."

"But I," he says, "was free born." So then his father also was a Roman. What then comes of this? He bound him, and brought him down to the Jews. And the chief captain was afraid, after he learnt that he was a Roman. Why then it was no falsehood.

But how is it possible to be both from Tarsus and a Roman? Hear then the Philippians, when they dragged Paul and Silas before the rulers into the marketplace, since the Pythoness' slave-girl was released, what do they say? that "These men are disturbing our city, being Jews, and proclaiming customs which it is not lawful for us to accept or to practice, being Romans." (Acts 16:20-21) Do you see the Philippians calling themselves Romans? Therefore nothing prevents Paul from being both from Tarsus and a Roman. For since it seemed a thing of honor to be called a Roman, and he who was called by this name was thought to acquire something more than others in terms of glory, many people, both collectively by cities and some individually, were eager to acquire this title for themselves. And while each was named after his native land, whichever it happened to be, indicating the place that bore him, he was also called a Roman, ascribing this title to himself as a mark of dignity. Therefore, at any rate, Paul also, when they were about to dishonor and strike him, brought forward this name, seeking to strike them with fear and to check them in their daring act. But they say: Let these things be so. How is it possible for Paul to have been born both in Tarsus and in Rome? For it has been shown to be in no way impossible to have been born in Tarsus and yet be called a Roman, having acquired this title for himself by way of some honor. And that he was also born in Tarsus and in Rome, how is that possible? And where does Paul say that he was born in Rome? "Yes," he says. For when the centurion said, "I bought this citizenship with much money," Paul says, "I was born a citizen." And what does this mean? For he did not say, I was born in Rome, but he indicates it from what follows. For when the centurion mentioned not Rome, but the Roman citizenship, he added, "I was born a citizen." Not in Rome (for the centurion did not say that he had acquired a great sum), but in the Roman state and honor, just as he said he acquired. How then was he born in the Roman state, if he was not born in Rome? Because when his father acquired this honor, and by it being revered and celebrated, he himself was born to him. Therefore when he says, "I was born a citizen," he means: He has recently obtained the honor himself, having acquired it, while I bear the paternal glory and have shared in it. For this reason he says, "I was born a citizen."

And in another way. Paul was not lying in calling himself a Roman, although being a Jew, as he himself said a little earlier. For from Hadrian it happened that all were Romans. For those who were therefore esteemed to be called had then great privilege. He says these things so that, if he had been whipped, he would not become despised. For if they had scourged him, they would also have urged the matter and would have killed him. But now even if not for another reason, yet for this one not only did they not scourge him, but they also released him. Paul therefore asserts that his father was a Roman. For before Paul was born, Cilicia having become subject to the Romans, it was necessary that he too, being under them, be a Roman.

Let it suffice to the martyr to have purged his own sins: it is the part of ingratitude or of pride to lavish upon others also what one has obtained at a high price. Who has redeemed another's death by his own, but the Son of God alone? For even in His very passion He set the robber free.

"But Paul said: and I was born in it." Look: his father too was a Roman. Before Paul was born, Cilicia had already come under Roman rule, and therefore his father, as one who had come under their authority, necessarily had to be a Roman. Paul, according to the prophecy, was bound in Jerusalem, and the prophetic word was fulfilled. What happens next? The tribune unties Paul and brings him before the Jews. So it is no lie that he is a Roman, because the tribune was afraid that he was a Roman, that is, a man of noble birth.

The tribune also feared, after he discovered that he was a Roman citizen. For citizen, the same word in Greek is placed, which above was for inhabitant, that is, πολίτης.

But later he was bound in Jerusalem according to the prophecy. What then follows from this? Having loosened him, he led him before the Jews. Therefore it was not a falsehood. For the tribune feared, he says, having recognized that he is a Roman, that is, of the class of officials.

"On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty whereof he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them." This he should have done at the outset. He brought him in, loosed. This above all the Jews would not know what to make of. He discourses not now to the multitude, nor to the people.