I. INTRODUCTION
A. Paul stood up for his rights as a Roman citizen. When his rights were violated by an authority supposedly acting under the auspices of Rome, he demanded a public apology.
B. Paul could have left town quietly and safely, but that would have been tantamount to a confession of guilt on his part. He had already been condemned by the magistrates, scourged for a crime, and imprisoned for violating the laws of the empire. He wanted and needed his name cleared.
C. What had been done unjustly to Paul and Silas, could not be undone, but it could be acknowledged as a mistake by the magistrates and their names cleared. Once the magistrates heard that they were Roman citizens, the public apology was made, (Acts 16:38,39).
D. How may a Christian assert their rights or have them vindicated under the laws of the land. How far can we go to assert our rights? When is it proper to assert them? What motives should be behind our assertion of our rights? How can we reconcile Paul's actions (and ours) with the commands of Christ concerning meekness and a spirit of forgiveness?
II. DISCUSSION
A. The rights which Paul had as a Roman citizen. We do not know for sure how he became a Roman citizen, but we do know he was one and availed himself of the rights appertaining to that citizenship on more than one occasion. The rights of a Roman citizen were invaluable to Paul. It gave him honor among men, and protection of the best system of laws in place at the time.
1. In general, a Roman citizen could not be crucified, scourged , or beaten.
2. The Roman citizen had the right to a public trial. This helped in some way to offset the sternness of the Roman law.
B. How had the Roman rights of Paul and Silas been violated?
1. Background Philippi was a major Roman colony, (Acts 16:12). To the Romans, a colony was under the same laws as Rome itself, as contrasted to a territory, such as Judea, which was allowed to keep some of its own government and peculiar laws.
2. As Roman citizens, Paul and Silas could have expected protection of their rights while in Philippi, but either they did not assert their Roman citizenship or their assertion was disregarded.
3. The persecution that arose against the church (specifically Paul and Silas) occurred sometime after the conversion of Lydia. The excitement caused by the preaching of Christ versus any of the local deities often made an uproar, as well as violence, (see also Acts 19:23-34). READ: Acts 16:16-24.
4. Note the charges brought against Paul and Silas: "troubling the city," and introducing "customs" contrary to Roman law. The magistrates, reacting to the mob, did not inquire into the true nature of the offense, gave Paul and Silas no chance to defend themselves, and commanded them to be beaten and thrown into prison.
5. Paul had done nothing wrong under Roman law in healing the demoniac. From the Gospel's point of view he saved it from being discredited by "soothsaying" which had no part with Christ. He actually did the citizens of Philippi a favor by putting these charlatans out of business.
6. Paul and Silas had been treated unjustly. The had been condemned, beaten, and imprisoned without a trial and subjected to punishment in prison that even their alleged crimes did not warrant.
C. Paul and Silas were within their rights as Roman citizens and more importantly Christians, to assert their rights. How do we reconcile this statement with such passages as Mt. 5:39-41 and Paul's own admonition of 1Cor. 6:6-8?
1. The true interpretation of the Savior's own words in the Sermon on the Mount can be seen in His own conduct. He never retaliated against the evils of individuals, but under violations of the law he would speak against those violations, (Jn. 18:23).
2. The value of the civil law is the protection of our rights.
a. Paul obviously believed this to be the true value of civil law, (Acts 23:2,3; Acts 25:11).
b. Modern civil laws protect its citizens from arbitrary punishment, gives the accused the right to meet his accuser, and among many other things the right to a trial. These "rights" have been obtained over the years through many changes in governments and powers. They were basically unheard of in the time of Paul and Silas except under the Romans.
c. As a Christian we have the right to appeal to the laws of the land to have our grievances redressed. When we begin to make a list of all the great men who have stood up for their rights through the ages, do not forget the Apostle Paul.
3. Paul is justified for his actions. Paul was not acting only on behalf of himself and Silas, but for all Christians that would try to practice their religion in Philippi. If the implications of Paul's punishment would have only affected him, he would not have retaliated. However, the maintenance of the young church at Philippi was at stake, so the wrongs done to him had to be publicly acknowledged. The character of Paul (and the public's proper estimate of it) was invaluable to his ministry. This demanded that his name be cleared.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Review and answer the questions posed in part D. of the introduction.
2. Why did Paul want and need his named cleared in this incident?
3. Compare and contrast the situation in Philippi with the events at Ephesus in Acts 19.