Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 16:37

"But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men that are Romans, and have cast us into prison; and do they now cast us out privily? Nay verily; but let them come themselves and bring us out." — Acts 16:37 (ASV)

They have beaten us openly uncondemned. Paul complains of three aggravating circumstances mentioned:

1. They had been beaten, contrary to the Roman laws.
2. It had been public; the disgrace had been in the presence of the people, and the reparation ought to be as public.
3. It had been done without a trial and while they were uncondemned. Therefore, the magistrates ought to come themselves and release them, thus publicly acknowledging their error.

Paul knew the privileges of a Roman citizen, and at proper times, when the interests of justice and religion required it, he did not hesitate to assert them.

In all this, Paul understood and acted in accordance with the Roman laws.

The Valerian law declared that if a citizen appealed from the magistrate to the people, it was not lawful for the magistrate to beat him with rods or to behead him (Plutarch, Life of P. Valeflus Publicola; Livy, ii. 8).

By the Porcian law, it was expressly forbidden that a citizen should be beaten (Livy, iv. 9). Cicero (Pro Rabirio, chap. 4) says that the body of every Roman citizen was inviolable.

"The Porcian law," he adds, "has removed the rod from the body of every Roman citizen." And in his celebrated oration against Verres, Cicero says, "A Roman citizen was beaten with rods in the forum, O judges; where, in the meantime, no groan, no other voice of this unhappy man was heard, except the cry, 'I am a Roman citizen.' Take away this hope," he says, "take away this defense from the Roman citizens—let there be no protection in the cry, I am a Roman citizen—and the praetor can with impunity inflict any punishment on him who declares himself a citizen of Rome," etc.

Being Romans. This phrase means being Romans, or having the privilege of Roman citizens. They were born Jews, but they claimed that they were Roman citizens and had a right to the privilege of citizenship. Regarding the ground of this claim, and the reason why Paul claimed to be a Roman citizen, see Acts 22:28.

Privily. This word means privately. The release should be as public as the unjust act of imprisonment. Since the magistrates had publicly attempted to disgrace them, they should also publicly acquit them. This was a matter of mere justice; and as it was of great importance to their character and success, Paul and Silas insisted on it.

Nay, verily; but let them come, etc. It was proper that the magistrates should be required to do this for several reasons:

1. Because they had been illegally imprisoned, and the injustice of the magistrates should be acknowledged.
2. Because the Roman laws had been violated, and the majesty of the Roman people thus insulted; and honor should be done to the laws.
3. Because injustice had been done to Paul and Silas, and they had a right to demand just treatment and protection.
4. Because such a public act on the part of the magistrates would strengthen the young converts and show them that the apostles were not guilty of a violation of the laws.
5. Because it would tend to the honor and to the furtherance of religion. It would be a public acknowledgment of their innocence and would go far towards lending them the sanction of the laws as religious teachers.

We may also learn from this:

1. Though Christianity requires meekness in receiving injuries, there are occasions when Christians may insist on their rights according to the laws .
2. This is to be done particularly where the honor of religion is concerned, and where the gospel will be promoted by it. A Christian may bear much as an individual in a private capacity and may submit without any effort to seek reparation; but where the honor of the gospel is concerned—where submission without any effort to obtain justice might be followed by disgrace to the cause of religion—a higher obligation may require him to seek a vindication of his character and to claim the protection of the laws.

His name, character, and influence belong to the church. The laws are designed as a protection for an injured name, for violated property and rights, and for an endangered life. And when that protection can only be had by an appeal to the laws, such an appeal, as in the case of Paul and Silas, is neither vindictive nor improper.

I may sacrifice my private interests if I choose. However, my public name, character, and principles belong to the church and the world; and the laws, if necessary, may be called upon for their protection.