Acts 22:29 MEANING



Acts 22:29
(29) Which should have examined him.--The verb had acquired the secondary sense (just as "putting to the question" did in mediaeval administration of justice) of examining by torture.

Because he had bound him.--The words seem to refer to the second act of binding (Acts 22:25) rather than the first (Acts 21:33). The chains fastened to the arms were thought of, as we see afterwards, when St. Paul's citizenship was an acknowledged fact (Acts 26:29; Ephesians 3:1; Ephesians 4:1), as not incompatible with the respect due to a Roman citizen. The binding, as slaves were bound, with leathern thongs, was quite another matter.

Verse 29. - They then which were about to examine him straightway departed from him for then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him, A.V.; when for after, A.V. Had bound him (ῆν αὐτὸν δεδεκώς), as related in Acts 21:33. Ἐκέλευσε δεθῆναι: "Facinus est vinciri civem Remanum," Cicero, in 'Verrem,' 5:66 (quoted by Meyer).

22:22-30 The Jews listened to Paul's account of his conversion, but the mention of his being sent to the Gentiles, was so contrary to all their national prejudices, that they would hear no more. Their frantic conduct astonished the Roman officer, who supposed that Paul must have committed some great crime. Paul pleaded his privilege as a Roman citizen, by which he was exempted from all trials and punishments which might force him to confess himself guilty. The manner of his speaking plainly shows what holy security and serenity of mind he enjoyed. As Paul was a Jew, in low circumstances, the Roman officer questioned how he obtained so valuable a distinction; but the apostle told him he was free born. Let us value that freedom to which all the children of God are born; which no sum of money, however large, can purchase for those who remain unregenerate. This at once put a stop to his trouble. Thus many are kept from evil practices by the fear of man, who would not be held back from them by the fear of God. The apostle asks, simply, Is it lawful? He knew that the God whom he served would support him under all sufferings for his name's sake. But if it were not lawful, the apostle's religion directed him, if possible, to avoid it. He never shrunk from a cross which his Divine Master laid upon his onward road; and he never stept aside out of that road to take one up.Then straightway they departed from him, which should have examined him,.... By scourging; namely, the soldiers, who under the inspection of the centurion, and by the order of the chief captain, were binding him with thongs to scourge him, and thereby extort from him his crime, which was the cause of all this disturbance; but hearing that he was a Roman, either of their own accord, or rather at the order of their officers, either the centurion or chief captain, or both, left binding him, and went their way:

and the chief captain also was afraid after he knew that he was a Roman; lest he should be called to an account for his conduct, and his commission should be taken from him: chiefly,

and because he had bound him; not only had commanded him to be bound with thongs to a pillar, in order to be scourged, but he had bound him with two chains, when first seized him; and, as before observed; see Gill on Acts 22:25; it was a heinous crime to bind a Roman.

Courtesy of Open Bible