When the crowd grew silent, Paul spoke to them in Hebrew. According to the exegesis, that would probably have been Aramaic which is often inaccurately called Hebrew. He could well have spoken to them in Greek and many would have understood him, but he chose to speak to them in their own language. He passed up an opportunity to show his academic superiority. He wanted the simplest person in the crowd to understand his story. When Jesus spoke, he spoke in a language every farmer and fisherman could understand. Neither Jesus nor Paul wanted affectations in language to obscure the meaning of their thoughts.

Paul also showed no sign of bitterness. He had been mistreated in cities throughout Greece and Asia Minor. After the way he was received in Jerusalem, it would have been understandable. He also gave the people the benefit of the doubt and assumed that they thought what they were doing was in the best interests of their religion. He described himself in the days before his conversion as being "as ardent for God as you all are to-day." Another thing to notice is that Paul spoke from his own experience. He did not set forth propositions of faith or belief. He presented no theories or philosophies. He wanted everyone to understand exactly what happened to him.

He once again told the story of his experience on the way to Damascus. He began with his credentials as a Jew taught by Gamaliel in the law of the fathers. This identified him with the best traditions of rabbinical Judaism. He admitted frankly his first hatred of the Christians. He told how zealous he was in binding and delivering Christian men and women into prison. He recounted how he received letters authorizing him to go to Damascus and bring back prisoners to be punished in Jerusalem.

He had told the story many times before and probably some of the details and emphasis varied. The vital portions remained the same. It was the light that blinded him to everything else. It was the voice that accused him of persecution. These were the things he could never forget. It was the testimony of personal experience that is the irrefutable argument. Nothing can induce calm like the simple direct statement of a person who had seen the Lord and whose whole life is illuminated by the light of the vision.

It appears all was going well until Paul mentioned the word "Gentiles." There appeared to be interest when he told them about his early upbringing in the law. There were no signs of unrest when he recounted the vision on the road to Damascus. The people accepted it all with interest and curiosity if not with sympathy and credence. When he said the Lord told him to leave Jerusalem and go to the Gentiles, the flames were instantly sparked. That was the signal to abandon reason and resort to mob violence. The crowd yelled, "Away with such a fellow from the earth: for he ought not to live." If Paul is not fit to live, who is?

It is incredible that human beings endowed with intelligence and compassions, can nevertheless yield themselves to the baser impulses of their nature. They make a judgment that is not only stupid but immoral and then proceed to the destruction of all that is good and noble. We seldom realize just how self-deceived people can be and how easy it is to ignore the truth staring them in the face. It leaves us sober and humble to see to what depths mankind can stoop. If you compare those depths to the incredible heights a few chosen people reach, you begin to see the potential of this life. God really has placed unbelievable possibilities in our hands. What we make of it is up to us.

After Paul’s speech, the crowd was even more disorderly than before. The people cried out and waved their garments and threw dust into the air. By this time the Roman commander was completely confused. He was not a Jew and had no idea what it was all about. He had to discover the real issue stop this unrest. In addition to punishment, scourging was a legalized method of extorting confession from a slave. It was not legal to be used on a free man or a Roman citizen. Paul was taken to the barracks and tied in preparation for the examination. To us it seems inappropriate to torture someone to get answers. To some military minds, it is simply a direct approach to get reliable answers.

Paul never tried to conceal his Roman citizenship and in fact, in some circumstances it provided a status he otherwise lacked. This seemed a good time to again take advantage of it. Paul asked the centurion if it was lawful to scourge a man who is a Roman citizen, and was not condemned. He reported to the tribune who came to check for himself. When Paul answered that he was a Roman citizen, the tribune replied that he paid a large sum for his citizenship. Many within the boundaries of the empire were slaves. Some had purchased their citizenship and some, like Paul, had inherited it. Rome, in spite of the light in which we frequently view it, was a great deal better than any of the empires that had preceded it. Being a citizen entitled a person to the protection of her law and army in addition to giving a kind of prestige, both social and political.

From our democratic point of view, we find the discrimination between citizens and any others unacceptable. We work constantly to insure that the same rights and privileges are granted to all people. We must give credit to Rome for grasping the concept of the state as a protector of the individual. The fact that they didn’t apply it as universally as we do does not negate the concept. In fact, applying it as universally as we do seems destined to create problems of another nature.

Protection of legal rights and privileges is an admirable goal. It will never be applied perfectly in any particular situation. We see the discrimination in Roman culture between slaves, free men and Roman citizens. In our culture, we provide, as well as can be administered by men, the same protection of legal rights and privileges to everyone. We do not limit it to citizens. We do not limit it to adults. We do not even limit it to rights and privileges. We insure that everyone can practice their own set of ethics and morals, as long as it does not disturb the government’s concept of good order. Unfortunately, that process insures there can be no standards, ethics or morals recognized by the state. When the state quits encouraging ethical behavior, you can be sure they will become an endangered species.

Paul took advantage of his Roman citizenship very seldom. Mob violence was against the law and yet Paul was repeatedly scourged, stoned and beaten. He never claimed his rights as a Roman citizen merely to make things easier for himself. It was only when his life was in danger that he brought up his citizenship. He was willing to take the insults of the crowd, to be accused unjustly, to be put in prison. It probably helped his credibility that he avoided using the privileges of being a Roman citizen. People are not generally impressed with the exhortations of someone who does not have to endure their life. How effective is the advice of someone who has never experienced your problems? Accepting a wealthy person’s advice for how to live below the poverty level is not easy. It could actually be very good advice. After all, people with money are accustomed to the value and frugal use of money. Still it is hard to believe they know what they are talking about if they haven’t been there.

Paul knew that permanent injury, if not death, was the usual result of scourging to extort a confession. After all, the theory is that when you have nothing left, you are more inclined to tell the truth. With that mindset, few people actually survived the process. This is the point at which Paul resorted to the rights and privileges of being a citizen of the empire. At this point, the tribune had another problem. First, he was concerned that he had already violated Paul’s rights by binding him for the torture. Second, he still didn’t know why the Jews accused him and caused a riot. Luke tells us he called the chief priests and all the council to meet.

One would have expected Paul to be released completely. It is unusual for a Roman authority to turn someone over to the Jewish jurisdiction. It is almost certain that the Sanhedrin formally laid a charge against him. It would have been the Sadducean hierarchy and they were less concerned with a religious heretic than they were a disturber of the peace. They would afraid of incurring the wrath of the Roman authorities if another riot occurred.