Acts 16:37Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Let the authorities themselves come to the prison to release us from our bonds and thereby make amends for their fault.” Without doubt, this was bound to produce a strong effect on the city authorities and make them pay greater attention to their preaching. Fear of retribution for the insult could dispose them favorably toward the newly formed society of Christians. But if the apostles had left the prison merely by order of the authorities, the city might have retained the unjust opinion of them and their followers that greed and malice had suggested. Thus Paul did not wish to neglect any means for the benefit of the Gospel. The authorities fulfilled his wish and thereby showed what impression the deeds of Paul and Silas had made on them. Yet, probably in order not to stir up unrest among the people, they required them to leave the city. Paul and Silas did not resist. They only went into Lydia’s house and gave the believers a farewell consolation and instruction. But they left Timothy and Luke in their place to continue the work that had begun. Timothy is mentioned already in Berea (Acts 17:14). Since Timothy was not personally known to the Thessalonians, Paul commends him to them in 1 Thess 3:2. As for Luke, from the time of the Apostle Paul’s departure from Troas (Acts 16:10) he had spoken of Paul in the first-person plural. Now he narrates about the apostle in the third person. Five or six years later Luke is again found in Philippi (Acts 20:6). It is unknown whether he spent all that time there. The Philippian Christians were so devoted to Paul that they repeatedly sent him monetary aid, even to Thessalonica (Phil 4:15–16). During his stay in Rome they also sent brethren to him to share in his afflictions (v. 14).

After apologizing to the apostles, the authorities asked them to leave the city, and the preachers of Christ departed from Philippi. Further on, in Acts 16:40–17:1, the writer says, “they departed.” This gives grounds for thinking that the Evangelist Luke did not leave Philippi with Paul and Silas. Rather, he was left there for a time to order the newly founded Church.

Roman citizenship, according to Roman laws, Lex Valeria and Lex Porcia, Livy 10.9.8, freed those who possessed this rank from dishonoring bodily punishments with rods, whips, and the like. Relying on this, Paul says in effect: We possess the rights of Roman citizenship. Without a trial, which alone can determine whether we are guilty or innocent, you publicly subjected us to a punishment from which the laws free Roman citizens. Then, again without trial, you publicly threw us into prison as guilty men, as criminals. And now, having come to your senses after your rashness, you release us secretly, or more precisely, cast us out or drive us away? No, this is contrary to law. We do not demand that the magistrates undergo the punishment that the laws impose on those who insult the rights of Roman citizenship. Neither we nor our work need this. But let them come here to us in person. Let them themselves release us publicly from the prison, acknowledging their guilt and thereby giving public satisfaction for the dishonor publicly inflicted. That Silas had the right of Roman citizenship is known only from this passage. But that Paul had this right is evident also from the later accounts of the writer of Acts (Acts 22:25–28). It had probably been granted to one of his ancestors for services, or acquired by purchase; compare Acts 22:28.

Paul frightens the magistrates so that they should not think they were released at someone’s request. He even accuses the magistrates of having beaten them publicly, though they were innocent and Roman citizens besides. You see that they often acted as ordinary men do. Paul said this so that it would not seem he was being released as a harmful man or as one accused of anything. As for the jailer, he is Stephanas, whom Paul mentions in the First Epistle to the Corinthians when he says, ‘I also baptized the household of Stephanas’ (1 Cor 1:16).” The Roman citizenship of Silas is mentioned here for the first time. Of the Apostle Paul this is also said later; see Acts 22:25–28. “This miraculous event, the bringing forth from prison, excludes every possibility of a natural explanation. True, the writer of Acts was not a witness of the miracle. Yet he received information about this incident not at second or third hand, but immediately after the event. Perhaps he heard it from the Apostle Paul himself, if not from Saint Silas; compare Acts 16:13, 40. Indeed, what simplicity and lack of embellishment breathe through the narrative itself about this miraculous event! How natural and psychologically true is the jailer’s passage from despair, close to suicide, to reverent worship before the wonderworkers. In the liveliness of its action and the simplicity of the narrative, the account of the miraculous deliverance of Paul and Silas recalls the similar rescue of the Apostle Peter from the Jerusalem prison; see Acts 12:6–17.”