[222] 5. RELEASE AND DEPARTURE FROM PHILIPPI. (XVI 35) AND WHEN DAY WAS COME THE PRĘTORS SENT THE LICTORS, WITH THE MESSAGE to the jailor: "LET THOSE MEN GO". (36) AND THE JAILOR [223] REPORTED THE MESSAGE TO PAUL THAT "THE PRĘTORS HAVE SENT orders THAT YOU BE SET FREE. NOW, THEREFORE, GO FORTH AND TAKE YOUR WAY IN PEACE]" (37) BUT PAUL SAID UNTO THEM: "THEY FLOGGED US IN PUBLIC without investigation, ROMAN CITIZENS AS WE ARE, AND CAST US INTO PRISON; AND NOW DO THEY TURN US OUT SECRETLY? NOT SO; BUT LET THEM COME IN PERSON AND BRING US OUT." (38) AND THE LICTORS REPORTED TO THE PRĘTORS THESE WORDS; AND THEY WERE TERRIFIED ON HEARING THAT "THEY ARE ROMAN CITIZENS"; (39) AND THEY WENT AND BESOUGHT THEM, AND BROUGHT THEM OUT, AND ASKED THEM TO GO AWAY FROM THE CITY. (40) AND THEY WENT OUT FROM THE PRISON AND ENTERED INTO LYDIA'S HOUSE; AND THEY SAW AND EXHORTED THE BRETHREN, AND WENT AWAY.

The sudden change of attitude on the part of the Prętors is remarkable. One day they sent the prisoners for careful custody: the next morning they send to release them. The Bezan Reviser felt the inconsequence, and inserts an explanation: "And when day was come the Praetors [assembled together in the agora, and remembering the earthquake that had taken place, they were afraid, and]sent the lictors". But, though this is modelled on Luke's language (cp. I 15, etc.), it is hardly in his style of narrative. It is more characteristic of him to give no explanation, but simply to tell the facts. Perhaps the earthquake had roused their superstitious fears on account of the irregular and arbitrary proceedings of yesterday. Perhaps they felt some misgivings about their action. if we are right in [224] thinking that Paul and Silas had appealed vainly to their rights as Romans.

Whatever be the reason, there can be no mistake as to Luke's intention to bring out the contrast (1) between the orders sent to the jailor in the morning, and the charge given to him at night; (2) between the humble apology of the Prętors in the morning, and their haughty action on the previous day; (3) between the real fact, that the Prętors had trampled on Roman order and right, and their fussy pretense of vindicating the majesty of Rome. And so the same Prętors who had ordered them to be beaten and imprisoned now begged them to go away from the city. In the Bezan Text the request of the Prętors is put at greater length, and with obvious truth: "the magistrates, being afraid lest there should be another conspiracy against Paul, and distrusting their own ability to keep order, said, 'Go forth from this city, lest they, again make a riot and inveigh loudly against you to us'". The weakness of municipal government in the cities of the Ęgean lands was always a danger to order; and the Bezan Text hits off admirably the situation, and brings out with much skill the naive desire of the magistrates to avoid an unpleasant ease by inducing the innocent and weaker parties to submit to injustice and withdraw from the city. One would gladly think this Lukan.

In v. 37 the rendering (A.V. and R.V.) "uncondemned"does not fairly represent Paul's meaning, for it suggests that it would have been allowable for the Prętors to condemn Paul after fair trial to be flogged. But the Praetors could not in any circumstances order him to be flogged; in fact, formal trial would only [225] aggravate their crime, as making it more deliberate. The crime might be palliated by pleading that it was done in ignorance: and Paul would naturally cut away the plea by saying that they had made no attempt to investigate the facts. Yet the Greek is clear, and can only be translated "uncondemned". A parallel case occurs XXII 25, where Paul asks the centurion: "is it lawful for you to flog a man that is a Roman citizen, and him uncondemned?" Here there is the same false implication that the act would be aggravated by being done without the proper formal condemnation.

Yet Paul, as a Roman citizen, must have known his rights; and it seems clear that he could not have used the exact words which Luke reports. Now, when we consider the facts, we see that it must be so. No civis Romanus would claim his rights in Greek; the very idea is ludicrous. Paul claimed them in the Roman tongue; and we may fairly understand that the officials of a Roman colony were expected to understand Latin; for the official language even of far less important colonies in Asia Minor was Latin. The phrase which Paul used was most probably re incognita, "without investigating our case". Luke, however, had the true Greek inability to sympathise with the delicacies of Roman usage, and translates the Latin by a term, which would in some circumstances be a fair representative, but not here, nor in XXII 25.

The whole residence of Paul at Philippi seems to have been short: it is defined by Luke as being "for certain days,"and apparently not much seems to have been accomplished before the incident of the ventriloquist and the resulting imprisonment. If the party was at Troas [226] in October A.D. 50, they probably left Philippi before the end of the year. It seems probable from v. 40 that there were some other Christians besides those in Lydia's house. It is, however, remarkable that Luke makes no explicit reference to any other converts.

Doubtless, before Paul left, the question was discussed what should be his next centre; and Thessalonica was suggested, probably on account of its Jewish settlers, whose synagogue offered a good opening for work. The directions which were given the travellers at starting were to make their way along the Roman road through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica (XVII 1, where {diodeusantes} is the verb, {hodos} denoting the Roman road).