And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.
And when we came to Rome - or, 'had entered Rome' [eiseelthomen (G1525), seems the true reading]. Thus is our apostle at length brought to the renowned capital of the ancient world-situated on the banks of the Tiber, about 16 miles from its mouth, and at that time containing about two million inhabitants.
[The centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard]. Though the evidence against the genuineness of this clause is decisive х ho (G3588) hekatontarchos (G1543 ) paredooken ( G3860) tous (G3588) desmious (G1198 ) too ( G3588 ) stratopedarchoo--- lacking in 'Aleph (') A B, and all the most ancient manuscript and versions, and found apparently but in a few of the later manuscript and a number of cursives: it is easy to account for its getting in, though not genuine, as probably stating a fact; but if genuine, very difficult to explain its dropping out]. there is no good reason for doubting what it states. This "captain of the guard" then was the 'Praetorian Prefect,' to whose custody, as commander of the Praetorian guard (the highest military authority in the city), were committed all who were to come up for judgment before the emperor. Ordinarily, there were two such prefects; but from 51 to 62 A.D. one distinguished general-Burrus Afranius, who had been Nero's tutor-held that office; and as this bracketed clause speaks of "the captain," as if there were but one, Wieseler is led to fix the apostle's arrival at Rome to be not later than the year 62 AD But even though there had been two when Paul arrived, he would be committed only to one of them, who would be the captain of the guard to him. At most, therefore, this argument-supposing the clause it is built on to be genuine-could furnish only confirmation of such chronological conclusions as can be otherwise established. But since no dependence can be placed upon the clause, no chronological inferences should be based on it.
But Paul was suffered to dwell. Leaving out the preceding clause, this "but," of course, goes with it [epetrapee ( G2010) too (G3588 ) Pauloo (G3972) is the genuine text].
By himself - or in quarters of his own,
With a soldier ('the soldier') that kept (or 'guarded') him. See the note at Acts 12:6 . This privilege was allowed in the case of the better class of prisoners, not accused of any flagrant offence, on finding security-which in Paul's case would not be difficult among the Christians. The extension of this privilege to the apostle may have been due to the terms in which Festus wrote about him; but far more probably it was owing to the high terms in which Julius spoke of him, and his express intercession in his behalf. It was overruled, however, for giving the fullest scope to the labours of the apostle compatible with confinement at all. Since the soldiers who kept him were relieved periodically, he would thus make the personal acquaintance of a great number of the Praetorian guard; and if he had to appear before the Prefect from time to time, the truth might thus penetrate to those who surrounded the emperor, as we learn from Philippians 1:12-13 that it did.