Acts 22

CHAPTER XXII

PAUL’S ADDRESS FROM THE CASTLE STAIRS AND ITS OUTCOME

Acts 22:1

1Paul’s address is a recital of facts, a simple, straightforward presentation of the things his Jewish hearers ought to know about him. Then they would not rage as they were now doing, would believe no such wild rumor as that he had brought Gentiles into the courts forbidden to them, but would ponder well the gospel which had made Paul a new man, yea, had turned the persecutor of the Christians into an apostle of their faith.

Men, brethren and fathers, hear now my defense to you! The address begins exactly like that of Stephen in 7:2. While in 21:37 ἄνθρωπος is pleonastic, ἅνδρες in the address is not. It is generally construed with an apposition, here it has a double one, for Paul acknowledges that all Jews are his bloodbrethren, and that any among them who are in authority are honored by him as fathers should be honored. “Brethren and fathers” is thus not to be understood from the Christian and spiritual but from the national standpoint. The address is arresting. These “brethren and fathers” wanted to tear Paul to pieces, were completely disowning him.

Yet he calls them by this affectionate title. He rises above their ignorant passion. Calm, self-possessed, master even of this frightful situation, he intends to bring them to their senses.

The pronoun μοῦ, like other enclitic pronominal forms, is entirely unemphatic and yet is quite regularly placed forward. Ἀπολογία is “defense” in the wider sense. Paul intends to present the great facts which ought to convince his hearers that their wild charges and actions are utterly baseless; νῦν is used as an adjective in the attributive position. The request to be heard is like that of Stephen and implies that a detailed account is to follow.

The address may be divided into three distinct parts. Its subject is an explanation as to how Paul, the Jew, became the apostle to the Gentiles. It begins with Paul, the ardent Jew, the persecutor of the Christians (v. 2–5). It proceeds with Paul converted into the witness for the Just One (v. 6–16). It closes with Paul sent away from the Jews to the Gentiles with his testimony (v. 17–21). The address is perfectly adapted to the audience.

It presents exactly what these and all other Jews ought to know and to consider in regard to Paul. It touches upon none of the charges made against him in 21:28, 29, yet destroys every basis for them so that no man could even think of making such charges against Paul. In not a single statement does Paul equivocate or manipulate the facts in order to placate or to win approval. Paul excuses nothing, hides nothing, makes no appeal of any kind. He simply tells the great facts of his life and lets them speak for him.

Acts 22:2

2Now on hearing that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet.

Note the tenses: the instant they heard (aorist) that he was addressing them in Aramaic (imperfect) they started to furnish quietness (inchoative imperfect) still more than before. In regard to the language see 21:40. All would have understood Paul if he had spoken Greek; but the fact that he should stand there among the Roman soldiers and use Aramaic instead of Greek surprised this mass of Jews and so pleased them in spite of the speaker that their silence became intent. Luke wants us to catch the contrast: a moment ago the roar of an enraged mob, this moment, after a single sentence from Paul’s lips, absolute silence. Visualize the scene; few of a more dramatic nature are found even in the New Testament. What was passing through the mind of the chiliarch as he eyed Paul and glanced at the crowds and yet understood not a word of what the apostle said?

Acts 22:3

3I—I am a man, a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia but reared in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the paternal law’s exactitude, being a zealot for God even as you yourselves all are today; one who did persecute this Way to death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women as also the high priest is witness for me and all the eldership, from whom also having received letters to the brethren I was journeying to Damascus to bring also those who were there bound to Jerusalem in order that they might be punished.

Ἐγώ is emphatic: “I, as far as I am concerned”; and ἀνήρ (not the pleonastic ἄνθρωπος which is often used by Luke as in 16:37, and in 21:39) makes the appositive substantive adjectival as in 10:28; 3:14; Luke 24:17 (B.-D. 242). The three perfect participles refer to states; once born, reared, educated a man remains thus. On Tarsus of Cilicia as Paul’s birthplace see 9:11 and 21:39. His place of birth made him a Hellenist, but his rearing and his education, both of which took place in Jerusalem, were those of a Hebrew; on the difference see 6:1. Although born abroad, Paul was reared “in this city,” i. e., Jerusalem (26:4). Only the fact is mentioned. At what age he was brought to Jerusalem (the guesses vary between eight and fourteen), and with whom he lived (a much older sister, 23:16?), are left to surmise.

We ought not confuse the second and the third participles; the one means “nourished up” and thus “reared.” while the other means “to train a child” and thus “to educate.” “At the feet of Gamaliel” is thus to be construed with the latter participle, for it also precedes it for the sake of emphasis: by no less a person than Gamaliel was Paul educated. This famous teacher scarcely trained little boys; Paul means that, when he was of proper age, he became a disciple of Gamaliel. See the remarks on 5:34. We see how old the expression “at the feet” is. The disciples, of course, sat cross-legged on the floor, their rabban (a title given only to Gamaliel and to six others; rabbi is less, and rab still less) sitting the same way on a platform. The Talmud explains: “They are to dust themselves with the dust of his feet.”

Paul’s having Gamaliel as a teacher already explains the kind of an education he received, but he adds this fact because it is so important for his present hearers: “according to the paternal law’s exactitude,” πατρῷος, “received from one’s father.” Paul’s Jewish education was limited to the things handed down from the Jewish fathers, and he received it in a form that was most exact and accurate. The genitive alone is enough to make its governing noun definite. No devout Jew in all Israel could have provided a more satisfactory Jewish upbringing and education for his son than that which Paul’s father provided for him. Where Paul obtained his knowledge of Greek poetry is another question.

The present participle adds what Paul thus turned out to be: ζηλωτὴςὑπάρχωντοῦΘεοῦ, “a zealot for God” (objective genitive), compare 21:20; and dramatically Paul adds: “even as you yourselves all are today,” referring to what they had just done to him when they imagined that he had desecrated God’s Temple. Paul refers to the same thing mentioned in Rom. 10:2. He is speaking subjectively and now describes the zealot he was.

Acts 22:4

4The relative is typically Greek and links the statements together instead of beginning a separate sentence; the verb, however, is the first person. Paul intends to say: this is the man I was, the one “who did persecute this Way to death,” just as his hearers had wanted to kill him (21:31). On this and the next verse see 9:1, 2, where “the Way” is also explained. The term is used intensively here, for “those being of the Way” are referred to. “Unto death” means that those who clung to Christianity were to be visited with the extreme penalty. Paul was satisfied with nothing less. This statement, together with 26:10, convinces us that not a few actually suffered death in the persecution under Paul’s leadership. The two participles show Paul’s means to this terrible end: “binding and delivering into prisons both men and women,” sex making no difference.

Acts 22:5

5The sentence continues with is ὡς: “as also the high priest is witness for me and all the eldership,” etc.; μαρτυρεῖ, present tense, “is witness.” Paul is speaking about what happened over twenty years before this time. That implies that the present high priest Ananias (23:2) and the present πρεσβυτέριον, i. e., Sanhedrin (naming it according to its dignity, “the eldership”) are the witnesses whom Paul can call upon to substantiate what he is saying. The point to be made is this, that Paul’s present hearers might doubt that he was at one time such a fierce foe of the very doctrine he was now preaching. Well, here were his witnesses—and not everyone could produce witnesses as high as these, than which Jews could have no higher. Some think that “the high priest” Paul mentions was Caiaphas who held the office at that time and who may well have still been alive. But the unmodified term “the high priest” and the next, “all the eldership,” must have suggested to Paul’s hearers those men who were now in office.

Ananias was, no doubt, one of the Sanhedrists, he had at least been connected with the Sanhedrin twenty years before this. Many of its members still held their office; besides, the old records of their actions were available. So Paul could call on the entire body for testimony.

In 9:2 only the high priest (Caiaphas) is mentioned in connection with the letters that empowered Paul to persecute the Christians in Damascus. That is due to the fact that he had to sign those letters. Here both he and the Sanhedrin are named as the authority that empowered Paul. In a matter such as this no high priest could act alone. These letters made Paul the agent of the entire Sanhedrin. They were addressed “to the brethren,” and “brethren” is used as it was in v. 1.

Now follows the imperfect ἐπορευόμην which describes Paul as being in the act of journeying to Damascus and at the same time indicates that something intervened. What happened is told in the following. Note: “from whom I was journeying,” all of them were responsible. The future participle ἄξων denotes purpose; these future participles are rare and mark the Koine of the writer as literary language. Paul was to bring any Christians he arrested to Jerusalem as prisoners to be tried and punished by the Sanhedrin. The Koine often ignores the difference between ἐκεῖσε and ἐκεῖ, “thither” and “there”; similarly we say, “Where did he go?” and not always, “whither?” We do not know how the Sanhedrin managed to have its death verdicts carried out.

Acts 22:6

6Now it happened to me, journeying along and drawing near to Damascus, about midday that suddenly out of the heaven there flashed a great light around me. And I fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why art thou persecuting me? And I on may part answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said to me, I am Jesus, the Nazarene, whom thou art persecuting. But those who were with me beheld the light but did not hear the voice of him who was speaking to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said to me, Having arisen, be going into Damascus, and there it shall be told thee concerning the things which have been arranged for thee to do. And when I was not recovering sight due to the glory of that light, being hand-led by those with me, I came into Damascus.

Ἐγένετο is construed with the dative, and its subject is the accusative with the infinitive: “it happened or occurred to me that,” etc. The dative “to me” is modified by two descriptive participles: “to me in the act of journeying and drawing near to Damascus.” The only point not mentioned in 9:3 is the phrase “about midday,” when the sun is at its zenith and shines with the greatest brilliance. Here and in the following we need not repeat the full exegesis already given in 9:3, etc.; we shall touch upon only a few points that have not already been explained.

Acts 22:7

7The only variation here is the use of τὸἔδαφος, “the bottom” or “ground,” and the genitive φωνῆς, which makes us think more of the speaker, while the accusative would refer more to what is said by the speaker.

Acts 22:8

8The only addition here is that Jesus calls himself “the Nazarene,” a term that is constantly used for identifying Jesus.

Acts 22:9

9At this point Paul explains in regard to the Temple police who had been assigned to him to arrest and to bring in the victims. They did not hear τὴνφωνήν, what the speaker said; they did hear τῆςφωνῆς (9:7), that some speaker was speaking to Paul. There is not a contradiction between the accusative used here and the genitive used in 9:7.

Acts 22:10

10Here the account is more detailed than in 9:5. Paul asked what he is to do, ποιήσω, the aorist subjunctive in a question of deliberation or doubt; he is thereupon told what to do. In 9:5 this is condensed so as to dispense with the question. The conversation was carried on in Aramaic, hence the translation into Greek may show verbal variations. The force of δεῖ in 9:6 is quite the same as that of τέτακται; “it is necessary” for Paul to do what “has been arranged” by the Lord for him to do.

All that this conversation involves regarding Paul’s conversion and the view of the critics in regard to it we have treated in chapter nine.

Acts 22:11

11Here Paul is briefer and less specific than Luke is in 9:8, 9, but the sense is exactly the same. The imperfect describes how “he was not recovering his sight,” and ἀπό states the cause for this lack of recovery. Ἀναβλέπω has its common meaning, “to look up” so as to see and is used freely with reference to those who were blind and then look up again and are able to see. In regard to Paul’s condition during the three days of blindness see 9:9.

Acts 22:12

12And one Ananias, a man devout according to the law, attested by all the resident Jews, having come to me and stepped up, said to me, Brother Saul, recover sight! And I in that hour recovered sight to look on him. And he said: The God of our fathers did appoint thee to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice out of his mouth, because thou shalt be a witness for him to all men of what things thou hast seen and didst hear. And now, why art thou hesitating? Having arisen, get thyself baptized and get thy sins washed away, calling on his name.

All that is recorded about the preparation of Ananias for Saul and of the preparation of Saul for Ananias in 9:10–16 Paul omits from his address as not being pertinent to his present purpose. The point of importance for his fanatic Jewish hearers is that this Ananias, like so many early Jewish believers, was the devoutest kind of a Jew “according to the law,” measured by the canon of faithful law observance; εὑλαβής = one who takes hold well in a religious sense, “devout” in religious observance (2:5; 8:2). Lest anyone think that this is merely Paul’s opinion, he at once adds: “attested by all the resident Jews,” κατοικούντων, attributive present participle. All the Jews in Damascus esteemed Ananias a most faithful Jew; the division between the synagogue and the disciples had not yet occurred.

Acts 22:13

13This was the kind of a man, Paul wanted his hearers to note well, who came to him, stepped up (9:17, laid his hands on Paul), and addressed him. What Ananias said is condensed into three Greek words. “Brother Saul” is the same address as that found in 9:17, which see. The aorist imperative, ἀνάβλεψον, “recover thy sight,” either summarizes what 9:17 reports in detail, or is the command which Ananias actually uttered but which is omitted in 9:17. How Ananias came to do this, and how it happened that his word proved instantly effective, are here left to the minds of Paul’s hearers to think out. The fact that a higher hand was back of it they felt automatically.

“In that very hour” is the Hebrew idiom for “without delay,” in 9:18, “immediately.” Here the aorist ἀνέβλεψα is construed with εἰςαὑτόν; this construction does not give the verb a meaning that is different from its use without a modifier but is in accord with its Greek meaning, “to recover sight so as to see or look up again with seeing eyes”; Paul saw Ananias with recovered sight. All that underlies this fact Paul again leaves to the minds of his hearers to think upon.

Acts 22:14

14Now Paul amplifies Luke’s account which merely reports that Paul was baptized then and there, etc. It is important that his hearers know what Ananias said, not only as leading to the baptism, but also as indicating God’s intention regarding Paul’s work after that. On the road into Damascus Jesus spoke to Paul from heaven. Already that conveyed volumes to Paul’s audience regarding Jesus, for it implied that he had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. But it is “the God of our fathers,” the one true God in whom all Jews and Paul with them believed, of whom Ananias told how “he did appoint thee to know his will,” etc., “did put forth into his hand beforehand,” exactly as in 3:20. Long in advance of this hour Israel’s God had determined to effect three things.

The first was that Paul was “to know his will,” to come to a full realization (γνῶναι, aorist) of what it contained. “His will,” θέλημα, is certainly his volition as it is expressed in the gospel. Actually to realize that will is to believe the gospel and thus to be saved. This had to come first; without it God could not have used Paul in spreading the gospel as an apostle.

Next is “to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice out of his mouth,” which qualified Paul for the apostolate. Paul actually saw Jesus in glory; see the discussion in 9:5, where 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8 are also introduced. We are left under the impression that without a direct vision of the risen Lord, including also “speech (φωνή) out of his mouth” in his glorified state, Paul could not have been an apostle in the full sense of the word, on a par with the Twelve. In his own wonderful way God himself qualified Paul. As for his own will in the matter, 26:19 is amply sufficient. In 7:52, Stephen called Jesus “the Righteous One,” in 3:14, Peter called him “the Holy and Righteous One”; here Paul quotes Ananias as using this Messianic title.

This title is continually found in the epistles, but it goes back to Isa. 53:11: the Messiah is the very embodiment of righteousness, he is the one who has the divine verdict in his favor in an absolute sense. This title is soteriological: Jesus executed the saving will of God perfectly, Ps. 40:8; John 4:34.

Acts 22:15

15Why did God grant all this to Paul? “Because thou shalt be a witness unto him,” etc. “To all men” makes clear the full extent of the witness Paul was to bear; his assignment to the Gentiles follows. The expression recalls 21:28, “teaching all everywhere.” The ὧν contains the antecedent τούτων, to the case of which ἅ is attracted. Paul was to testify to what he has seen and did hear. The change in tense in this relative clause is marked and thus significant. The perfect “thou hast seen” implies a permanent effect of the seeing, while the aorist “did hear” contents itself with the past fact as such. Paul’s having seen Jesus gave him the real qualification for the apostleship; his hearing the voice of Jesus was only an adjunct,B.-D. 342, 3.

Acts 22:16

16The question: καὶνῦντὶμέλλεις; as in the classics (Liddell and Scott), means: “And now why delayest thou?” Ananias is now encouraging Paul on his own account. He tells him what to do. The two aorist imperatives are causative middles: “get thyself baptized and get thyself washed as to thy sins” (B.-D. 317; R. 808). The action expressed by the aorist participle, “calling on his name,” is either simultaneous with that of the aorist imperatives or immediately precedes it, the difference being merely formal. “The name” is Jesus in his revelation; and to call on this name involves faith (Rom. 10:13, 14). This is one of the cardinal passages on the saving power of baptism; see the others, 2:38 discussed at length; Luke 3:3; John 3:3, 5; Tit. 3:5; Eph. 5:26. What makes the present passage unmistakably clear is the second imperative.

Why was it not enough to say, “Having arisen, let thyself be baptized, calling on his name”? Why was “and let thyself be washed as to thy sins” inserted if baptism and its water did not do this washing to remove the sins? The answer has yet to be given.

Was Paul to submit to a mere symbolic ceremony? What lay heavy on his conscience was the guilt of his enormous sin of persecuting the Messiah himself (v. 7). With its water that was sanctified by the Word baptism was to wash away all this guilt, all these sins. This washing away is the ἄφεσις of 2:38, and Luke 3:3, the “remission,” the “removal” of sins. To be sure, this washing away is “picturesque language” (R., W. P.); it is figurative, to speak more exactly, and is appropriate in that baptism has water in connection with the Word, Eph. 5:26.

But with “picturesque language” R. means that “here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place,” i. e., that is all that baptism does. R. does not seem to see that he contradicts Ananias. Whereas Ananias says, “Let thyself actually be baptized” (aorist), “let thyself actually be washed of thy sins” (again aorist), R. changes the latter and substitutes, “Let a picture be made of the washing away of thy sins.” It may be interesting to enact a picture, but that is about all. As βάπτισαι = a real baptism and not the mere picture of one, so ὑπόλουσαι = a real washing and not the mere picture of one.

Acts 22:17

17Paul comes to the third part of his address which states how he came to be sent to the Gentiles. Now it happened to me, on having returned to Jerusalem and while I was engaged in praying in the Temple, that I was in an ecstasy and that I saw him saying to me, Make haste and go out quickly out of Jerusalem because they will not receive thy testimony concerning me!

Paul passes over the three years that intervened, since they contained nothing pertinent to his present purpose. In 9:23–30 Luke has reported this visit of Paul’s to Jerusalem. The construction is the same as in v. 6, ἐγένετο with a dative, the subject being an accusative with the infinitive. A genitive absolute is inserted. We do not find an anacoluthon in the participles (R., W. P.); nor do we believe that the sentence is sehr ungefuegig (B.-D. 409, 4). It is well arranged, each element falls easily into its place even when translating. While a second dative participle might have been used in place of the genitive absolute, the latter is preferable because it makes the action of praying stand out by itself.

“It happened to me” brings out the idea that Paul had no hand in the matter. The aorist participle states the fact that Paul had returned to Jerusalem, but the present participle in the genitive absolute describes him as being engaged in praying in the Temple. This statement conveyed a great deal to his hearers. Although Paul had been converted to Jesus, the Temple was still the holy place of prayer to him. This prayer must have been offered at the regular hour for Jewish prayer. Paul was in his place with other Jewish worshippers.

Desecrate the Temple (21:28)—that was unthinkable to him. Now it was in the sacred Temple itself that Jesus communicated with him and ordered him to go to the Gentiles. Jesus chose that place as being most fitting. Would the Lord of the Temple, he who had revealed himself to Paul in his heavenly glory, desecrate the Temple by a communication he made? On the condition of “ecstasy” see 10:10; we retain this Greek word. This divine communication is not mentioned in 9:30.

The two accounts supplement each other. The brethren wanted Paul to leave, the Jews plotted to kill Paul, his hesitation was ended by the vision.

Acts 22:18

18Paul “saw him” (the Righteous One, v. 14) when he told Paul what to do. Here Paul again actually saw the glorified Savior; but now not with blinding effect. The Lord’s foreknowledge is here made manifest: the Jews of Jerusalem will not receive Paul’s testimony; in accord with that foreknowledge the Lord directs Paul to utter his testimony elsewhere. This is an excellent illustration as to how the divine foreknowledge is used by God. We cannot construe: “receive of thee” (R. V.), because that would require παράσου; “thy testimony” (A. V.) is correct.

Acts 22:19

19And I on my part said: Lord, they themselves know that for my part I went on imprisoning and hiding in synagogue after synagogue those believing on thee; and when the blood of thy witness Stephen was being shed, I myself also was standing by and agreeing and guarding the robes of those making away with him.

The point that Paul’s hearers are to note in this statement is his desire by all means to remain and to work among the Jews in Jerusalem, in the very place where everybody knew about his fearful persecution of the Christians; he thought that he was best fitted for that. It was the Lord who insisted on his going to the Gentiles. This is the point for Paul’s present hearers. As between Paul and the Lord, Paul is not refusing obedience but, like Ananias in 9:13, 14, is telling the Lord his own thoughts.

Both ἐγώ are emphatic; the first conveys the idea that Paul was bold enough to tell the Lord his own thoughts. And they were certainly most reasonable. In fact, that is why Paul now tells them to his present hearers. He was once so violent against the Christians and then became a very apostle of Christianity—surely, that would impress the Jews who knew the facts, make them realize that they, too, should pause, make them ready to follow Paul. We have ἤμην with two present participles, thus periphrastic imperfects; κατά is distributive: “synagogue by synagogue” and not “in every synagogue” (our versions). Paul never reached all of them. Δέρω means to flay, to pull off the skin, to administer a sound hiding. The synagogue courts had power to scourge with rods.

Acts 22:20

20Paul purposely goes back to Stephen’s death and the position he took at the time of that tragedy, compare the remarks on 7:58 and 8:1. We ought not entertain the idea that Paul considered this dangerous ground; quite the contrary. He considered it most fruitful ground, for it exhibited the blind rage of the Jews which he fully shared at the time and was then converted to fill the very place left vacant by Stephen’s bloody death. The tenses are descriptive imperfects and ask Paul’s hearers to dwell on these facts so as to gain their full import. Here again ἤμην, now being used with three participles, forms periphrastic imperfects; ἐφεστώς is the second perfect in form but is always used in the sense of the present.

“When the blood of Stephen, thy witness, was being poured out” is Paul’s testimony to the martyr in whose frightful death he was implicated. Paul acknowledges his former crime. “Thy witness” (see 1:8)—a man can bear no higher title. “I was agreeing” is explained in 8:1; ἀναιρέω designates murderous taking away and is used again and again to designate the murder of Jesus, “to make away with.” Paul officially helped to supervise the making away with Stephen; see 7:58.

Acts 22:21

21And he said to me, Be going because I myself will commission thee far away to Gentiles.

Ἐγώ is emphatic with authority: I am doing this, no matter what thou thinkest. The future tense of the verb denotes more than mere sending, it is the sending on a mission. The accusative μακράν (ὁδόν) is used as an adverb. “To Gentiles” is without the article and refers to people who are Gentiles and not Jews. Paul went out to Gentiles by divine direction alone (9:15). But his great ministry was not to begin even at this time; he had to wait for about thirteen years before he entered upon his first missionary journey.

The Effect of Paul’s Address

Acts 22:22

22Paul was not allowed to finish; we can only guess as to what he intended to add. And they continued listening to him up to this statement and lifted up their voice, saying: Make away from the earth with such a fellow! For it ought not to be that he continue to live. And they shouting and jerking off their robes and throwing dust into the air, the chiliarch ordered him to be brought into the castle, directing that he be examined with scourges in order that he might get to know for what cause they were thus crying against him.

The idea that the reference to the Gentiles acted like a spark in a powder magazine overlooks the fact that at various points the address must have gone against the grain of the mob until the last statement precipitated the outbreak. Paul was not offending his hearers, and yet he was not cringing before them. As always, he was careful in the choice of his language in order to convey exactly what he wanted to convey, but he did convey just what he deemed necessary and committed the result to God’s hands. The fact that the mob again lost its head was certainly to be expected. Paul himself certainly did not expect that his story would satisfy these Jews. The wonder of it is that the mob did not become violent just as soon as Paul mentioned the name “Jesus, the Nazarene,” in v. 8. The fact that it restrained itself until this time is to be credited to Paul’s personality which was expressed so powerfully in his voice and his word.

Paul’s object had been attained; when the uproar broke out anew, all who had heard that address and the mighty facts it stated were no longer in the condition indicated in 21:34, some saying one thing, some another, just guessing this and guessing that. They now knew Paul’s whole story. Paul had succeeded in putting them under full responsibility. This is always the case with regard to the opposition that meets the gospel and its defenders. We must testify to the facts, as to how we come to believe and to serve the Lord whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself, “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear (reverence),” 1 Pet. 3:15 The mob began to rage again, but that did not imply that Paul’s testimony did not make a deep and lasting impression on some of his hearers in order to bring fruit in due season. Some brands are thus plucked from the burning.

The old shout αἶρε (21:36) is renewed, the singular is addressed to the chiliarch; but Luke now reports more fully: “Make away from the earth with such a fellow (τὸυτοιοῦτου); for it ought not to be that he continue to live (ζῆν, present, durative infinitive)!” Souter prefers the reading that has the neuter participle καθῆκου (SC. ἐστίν), “it is not a fitting thing,” but he does so on the basis of the most slender textual evidence; we prefer the reading that has the imperfect καθῆκεν. This tense is the Greek idiom for a propriety, possibility, or obligation that has already existed too long and is still unfulfilled at the present. The Greek thought reaches into the past and from there to the present; the English and the German think only of the present and thus find difficulty in reproducing the Greek. R. 886. So here the thought is: “he should not have been permitted to live this long, should have been removed from the earth long ago.”

Acts 22:23

23The three present tenses in the genitive absolute describe the actions as continuing; the scene became more and more violent. κραυγάζω is the proper word to describe the roar of the mob. Some think there was nothing specific in the casting off of the robes and the throwing of dust into the air. On this supposition ῥιπτέω is translated, “swing their robes to and fro.” Throwing off the long, loose outer robes and flinging dust into the air go together and signify that the mob would stone Paul if it only could. On the robes see 7:58; dust is used because stones were not at hand, and, of course, the dust is hurled in the direction of Paul and not just into the air generally.

Acts 22:24

24Imagine the chiliarch with this scene before him. Mystified at the beginning (21:34), confused still more by Paul’s speech and its explosive result, he saw no other course to be followed than to order that Paul be taken into the castle (see 21:37), there to be examined. Both ἄγεσθαι and ἀνετάζεσθαι (which has at last been found in a papyrus) are present infinitives in indirect discourse for the present infinitives of the direct: “Let him be brought in and put to examination!”

The participle εἰπών (variant εἴπας) is aorist because one command was issued. It is a fine grammatical point as to whether this aorist participle expresses coincident or subsequent action (R. 861); but the real point is that it indicates a separate command and, as a participle, one that is secondary to the bringing in. When the agents are not to be designated, the passive is used (B.-D. 392, 4); so here: “to be brought in,” “to be examined.” When Pilate examined Jesus, Luke 23:14, ἀνακρίνω is used; we confess that, at least as far as the Scriptures are concerned, this verb is not used with reference to examination by torture as Abbott-Smith, Lexicon, claims. We must say the same in regard to ἀνετάζω; it does not include torture. The fact that torture was to be applied to Paul is expressed by the dative plural “with scourges.” The truth was to be whipped out of Paul in the fashion that was common in that day. Pilate gave no such order regarding Jesus; this shows that the chiliarch was convinced in his own mind that Paul must be a dangerous criminal and was determined to get a full confession in short order; ἐπιγιῷ is the subjunctive.

Acts 22:25

25Now, when they were stretching him forward for the thongs, Paul said to the centurion standing by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a Roman and one not (yet) subjected to trial? On hearing it the centurion, having gone to the chiliarch, reported, saying: What art thou on the point of doing? For this man is a Roman. And the chiliarch, having come to him, said to him, Tell me, thou, art thou a Roman? And he said, Yes. And the chiliarch answered, For my part I acquired this citizenship with much capital. But Paul said, But I have even been born so.

We take it that the order to examine Paul with scourges was given by the chiliarch at a moment when no protest could be offered by Paul Binding Paul with chains was already a serious violation of his Roman rights (v. 29) Now, under command of one of the centurions (there were several, 21:32), the order to apply the lash was promptly being carried out. The mob was left to howl until it was satisfied, the portal was closed, the chiliarch was in his quarters waiting for Paul to be brought to him after his tongue had been loosened by a good dose of the scourges. These were short handles with several thongs affixed to them and a piece of metal or bone fastened at the tip of each thong. Every blow made several stripes, the tips tore ugly gashes in the flesh. Two soldiers, one on each side, struck alternately. The ordeal was always terrible. After being lacerated sufficiently, the victim was to be brought to the chiliarch for questioning, and woe unto him if he did not answer satisfactorily—the scourges would again be applied.

Is προέτειναν an aorist or is it, as Blass surmised, an imperfect? On imperfects in—αν consult B.-D. 80–81; two texts do have the imperfect ending—ον. The imperfect would be eminently in place here as Zahn also states, “when they began to stretch him forward,” Paul spoke and not after they had done so. We thus venture to regard this form as the imperfect.

Another muted point is the dative τοῖςἱμᾶσιν. Does it mean, “with the thongs,” or, “for the thongs”? R. 533, also W. P., leaves the point undecided. The victim designated for scourging was bent forward (πρό in the verb) over a low, heavy pillar, his hands and his feet were tied to rings in the floor, the back was bared and stretched for the lashes. So Jesus was tied down and scourged. This was a different matter from the beating with rods by Roman lictors (16:22, ῥαβδίζειν, compare 16:37). We think that πρό in the verb decides that the sense of the datives is, “for the thongs” of the scourges and not, “with the thongs that bound the victim.” Irrespective of the preposition, others decide in the same way.

At this point Paul asked the question about his Roman rights. On εἰ see 1:6; ἄνθρωπον, Mensch (not ἀνήρ) is pleonastic. The entire question regarding the rights of a Roman citizen has been treated in 16:37, also the term ἀκατάκριτον. It indicates the aggravating circumstance there as well as here: rushing ahead with the scourging when even the beginning of a trial would have brought to light the prisoner’s Roman citizenship. The supreme Roman authorities would deal severely with a judge who did such a thing, for he could not plead ignorance because he had given the prisoner no opportunity to declare his rights. In this instance the chiliarch would be eminently to blame, for no one had as yet even brought a charge against Paul on the basis of which a trial could be held; the chiliarch could point to neither charge nor accusers. The fact to be noted is that by speaking now Paul was not merely saving himself but was saving also the chiliarch.

Acts 22:26

26No wonder the centurion hastened to make due report to his superior officer. His exclamatory question reveals how badly he himself is upset: “What art thou on the verge of doing?”

Acts 22:27

27So serious was the case that the chiliarch did not think of having Paul brought to him but immediately arose and went to Paul with the demand that Paul tell him whether he was a Roman; σύ is emphatic: “Thou, art thou a Roman?” Badly mistaken regarding Paul in the first place (21:38), he now finds himself in an error that is still worse. In 21:39 Paul had called himself “a Tarsian of Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city.” That was significant enough although it was not an outright declaration of Roman citizenship. Paul had spoken with great dignity, but that was lost on the chiliarch who had rashly ordered the scourges. The frightened questioner receives a terse, calm, “Yes!” as the only answer. The word is impressive in this dramatic situation; Paul intends it to be so. He was a Roman, and he spoke as one.

Not for one moment is the simple assertion of Roman citizenship questioned by either the praetors in Philippi or here by the chiliarch. We need not ask why. Summary death awaited the man who dared to claim Roman citizenship falsely.

Acts 22:28

28Deferentially the chiliarch answers that he on his part bought this citizenship for much capital, πολλοῦκεφαλαίου, genitive of price, which is exactly our word “capital,” a great sum of money, the principal as distinguished from the interest. Under the emperors the Roman citizenship was sold in order to fill their exchequer; Dio Cassius (LX, 17) reports that the wife of Claudius thus accumulated money. Perhaps Paul looked rather too poor to have been able to buy the right for himself, and the chiliarch probably thought—again making a bad guess—that he could have secured it in no other way. He naturally thought of himself. Judging from his name Lysias, he was probably a Greek who took the added name Claudius on becoming a Roman citizen.

With an equally emphatic ἐγώ Paul replies to the implied question: “But I have been born” so. Paul’s citizenship was inherited, and in that respect it was superior to that of the chiliarch. We have discussed this point in 16:37. The perfect, “I have been born,” denotes also the resultant state and may be translated, “I am born,” in our idiom.

Sometimes 16:22 is misunderstood as though Paul there allowed himself to be beaten, and then the question is argued as to why he did not do so here. Again there is a debate regarding the ethics of Paul in making use of his Roman citizenship, in insisting that its rights be respected. The prophecies regarding his bonds are also introduced. But this debate is pointless. Paul had already been bound as had been prophesied. Was the man who deliberately went to Jerusalem against the urgings of his friends (21:4, 12) trying to evade suffering that had been divinely allotted to him?

Certainly not. We have seen that, when in Philippi, Paul asserted his own Roman citizenship and that of Silas, this helped the gospel, those praetors learning that the Christians had Roman citizens among them. The same was true in regard to the chiliarch who learned that this Christian apostle was even a born Roman. Did this discovery hurt the gospel cause? The ethics that quietly assume that grace demands of us that we lie down in order that men may trample upon us at will, even in sheer ignorance, is false in its assumption, and no question raised on that assumption calls for a serious reply.

Acts 22:29

29Immediately, therefore, they stood away from him who were about to examine him; moreover, even the chiliarch became afraid, realizing that he was a Roman and that he had bound him.

The proceedings stopped with suddenness. We have explained in v. 24 what part the scourges were to play in the process of examining Paul. “They that were about to examine him” refers to all the soldiers who had been detailed for the scourging—that was their part; the questioning to learn the cause of the shouting against Paul, as indicated in v. 24, belonged to the chiliarch.

Δέ adds a different point, namely that “even the chiliarch became afraid,” ingressive aorist. He had cause for this. In 23:27 we see how he lies in order to cover up his guilt. He realized that he had put a Roman in chains, had committed a crime that might cost him dearly if the procurator learned of it and took a strict view. See 16:37 in regard to the Roman law. The fact that he had acted in ignorance might or might not be accepted as an excuse.

Acts 22:30

30Now on the morrow, wanting to know the certainty why he was accused by the Jews, he loosed him and ordered the high priests and all the Sanhedrin to come together and, having brought Paul down, he set him before them.

The debate in regard to the time when Paul was unchained leads some commentators to overlook a more important question: Why did the chiliarch himself fail to question Paul regarding “the certainty why he was accused by the Jews”? He did not dare to. Paul was a Roman; no accusers had appeared against him, no crime had been charged. The chiliarch could not even inaugurate a trial by judicial questioning in the case of a Roman without accusers and an alleged crime. In the case of a non-Roman the matter was different. Τό merely makes a substantive of the indirect question which is in apposition to τὸἀσφαλές.

We do not entertain the idea that Paul’s chains were left upon him until the next day and were taken off just before he was brought before the Sanhedrin. This chiliarch was frightened when he learned that he had chained Paul. He could plead ignorance for that; but once he knew that Paul was a Roman and then left him chained, he would knowingly have committed a grave crime against Roman law. The remark is pointless, that, having bound him already, it made little difference to leave him bound until the next day; or that he was stubborn and wanted to show his power. The chiliarch was no fool; the chains came off at once.

“On the morrow” places this entire verse into the next day. It does this even when it is construed with the participle, for we cannot refer the action expressed by the two main verbs to the day before, so that wanting to know would occur on the morrow but loosing Paul and ordering a meeting of the Sanhedrin occurred on the original day. This method of solving the difficulty is unsatisfactory. We cannot accept the contention that ἔλυσεναὑτόν is intended to correspond with ἧναὑτὸνδεδεκώς, and that both refer to chains. The point overlooked is the order of the actions: loosing—ordering the Sanhedrin to meet—leading Paul down to that meeting. Why this odd order if chains are, indeed, referred to?

The order should then be: ordering the Sanhedrin—then loosing and leading Paul down. If we drop the idea of chains, all is in line.

Paul was at once freed from his chains but was kept in the castle for the night. The next morning the chiliarch “loosed him,” set him free, summoned the Sanhedrin, and with Paul as a free man went down to the Sanhedrin to find out what he could. That implies that he asked Paul to appear before the Sanhedrin, that Paul consented, and that the Sanhedrin was then convened. That implies furthermore that the chiliarch and Paul went down to the Sanhedrin alone and without soldiers. Thus “he made him stand εἰςαὑτούς, into them.” This chiliarch had made mistakes enough in regard to Paul, he was going to make no more. As far as the soldiers are concerned, in 23:11 they go down just as the chiliarch here takes Paul down; and that means that, leaving the boisterous meeting, the chiliarch ran up to the soldiers or from below shouted for them to come down and thus brought them down.

The status of Paul was and, in fact, remained peculiar. He was set free but not fully; he was a prisoner, yet not fully. In this sense he is called a δέσμιος in 23:18. He is detained, not because there is anything definite to be charged against him, but because something might be found against him. Regarding chains in 24:27, and again in 26:29, 31 see these passages. Paul is only guarded (φυλάσσεσθαι, 23:35), detained with liberty to meet his friends (τηρεῖσθαι, 24:23) and not chained.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.