Homily on Acts 48
"And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned?" Paul lied not, God forbid: for he was a Roman. If there was nothing else, he would have been afraid to pretend this, lest he should be found out, and suffer a worse punishment. And observe he does not say it peremptorily, but, "Is it lawful for you?" The charges brought are two, both its being without examination, and his being a Roman. They held this as a great privilege, at that time: for they say that it was only from the time of Hadrian that all were named Romans, but of old it was not so. He would have been contemptible had he been scourged: but as it is, he puts them into greater fear than they him.
Had they scourged him, they would also have dismissed the whole matter, or even have killed him; but as it is, the result is not so. See how God permits many good results to be brought about quite in a human way, both in the case of the Apostles and of the rest of mankind. Mark how they suspected the thing to be a pretext, and that in calling himself a Roman, Paul lied: perhaps surmising this from his poverty.
Traduci con Google
SERMON ON THE MOUNT 1.19.58
However, the face cannot be designated as the right face and the left, but high rank can be either according to God or according to this world. Hence, it is as though the face were divided into the right cheek and the left, in order to signify that, whenever his becoming a Christian becomes an occasion of contempt in the case of any follower of Christ, he should be much more ready to be despised in his own person if he holds any of the honors of this world. Just as in the case of the apostle himself, when in his person people were persecuting the Christian denomination; if he then remained silent regarding the dignity which he held in the world, he would not have turned the other cheek to those who were striking him on the right cheek. But by saying, “I am a Roman citizen,” he was not unprepared to have them despise in his person the thing that he deemed of least value, when in his person they had despised a name so precious and salutary. Did he thereby endure in any less degree the chains which it was not lawful to place on Roman citizens? Or did he blame anyone for this injustice? Even though some people spared him on account of the title of Roman citizen, he did not on that account fail to offer them something to strike, for he yearned to correct by his own patience the perversity of those whom he saw to be honoring in his person the left portion rather than the right. The one thing to be considered is the spirit of kindness and clemency with which he acted toward those from whom he was suffering the injuries.
Traduci con Google
LETTER 3
For the divine command made what seems shameful honorable. Thus the apostle called himself at one time a Pharisee and at another a Roman, not because he was afraid of death but because it was fair to do so in a fight. Likewise he appealed to Caesar upon learning of the Jews’ plot against him. He sent his sister’s son to the tribune to report the plots being hatched against him, not because he clung to this present life but in obedience to the divine law. For our Master certainly does not wish us to throw ourselves into obvious peril. This [Jesus] taught us not only with words but also through action, for more than once he avoided the murderous violence of the Jews.
Traduci con Google
Commentary on Acts
How does Paul say, "I am a man, a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus in Cilicia, not of an insignificant city," and shortly after, "If a man is a Roman and uncondemned," and the following? How, then, having said these things, and not at another time but at that very moment when he spoke those words, and to the very same hearers, does he say: "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned"? And when the tribune asks, "Are you a Roman?" he demonstrated that he was a Roman, and not merely saying it casually, but by appeal, because "I was born a citizen." From this above all it is clear that he spoke the truth. For if at one time he said he was from Tarsus and at another time a Roman, or spoke that to some hearers and this to others, one might reasonably say that the claim of being a Roman was perhaps fabricated, thinking to deceive those present into believing that he was from Tarsus. But he, saying that he was from Tarsus, if he were not most conscious of the truth for himself, would not have dared to declare to the same men that he was a Roman, and then to be about to be beaten. For it is clear that by denying him he not only did not free him from the blows, but made the punishment even more severe. And he faithfully related also the slanders against him by the Jews, that he is a deceiver, and a liar, and a sorcerer, which above all Paul strove to put away. Moreover the tribune, if he had not been convinced that he was a Roman, would not have ceased from whipping him, he would not have rescued him urgently from the Jews who were plotting against him. He would not have written on his behalf to Felix that he was a Roman, and that as a Roman he had been snatched from the plot of the Jews.
The Jews would not have brought him before the magistrates, inventing charges against him that did not exist, but from this very thing, if he lied in claiming to be a Roman, beginning their slander with that and concerning the other matters they would seem also to be telling the truth.
Traduci con Google