Acts 18:12

We have here an account of some disturbance given to Paul and his friends at Corinth, but no great harm done, nor much hindrance given to the work of Christ there.

I. Paul is accused by the Jews before the Roman governor, Act 18:12, Act 18:13. The governor was Gallio, deputy of Achaia, that is, proconsul; for Achaia was a consular province of the empire. This Gallio was elder brother to the famous Seneca; in his youth he was called Novatus, but took the name of Gallio upon his being adopted into the family of Julius Gallio; he is described by Seneca, his brother, to be a man of great ingenuous and great probity, and a man of wonderful good temper; he was called Dulcis Gallio - Sweet Gallio, for his sweet disposition; and is said to have been universally beloved. Now observe, 1. How rudely Paul is apprehended, and brought before Gallio; The Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul. They were the ringleaders of all the mischief against Paul, and they entered into a confederacy to do him a mischief. They were unanimous in it: they came upon him with one accord; hand joined in hand to do this wickedness. They did it with violence and fury: They made an insurrection to the disturbance of the public peace, and hurried Paul away to the judgment-seat, and, for aught that appears, allowed him no time to prepare for his trial. 2. How falsely Paul is accused before Gallio (Act 18:13): This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law. They could not charge him with persuading men not to worship God at all, or to worship other gods (Deu 13:2): but only to worship God in a way contrary to the law. The Romans allowed the Jews in their provinces the observance of their own law; and what then? Must those therefore be prosecuted as criminals who worship God in any other way? Does their toleration include a power of imposition? But the charge was unjust; for their own law had in it a promise of a prophet whom God would raise up to them, and him they should hear. Now Paul persuaded them to believe in this prophet, who was come, and to hear him, which was according to the law; for he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. The law relating to the temple-service those Jews at Corinth could not observe, because of their distance from Jerusalem, and there was no part of their synagogue-worship which Paul contradicted. Thus when people are taught to worship God in Christ, and to worship him in the Spirit, they are ready to quarrel, as if they were taught to worship him contrary to the law; whereas this is indeed perfective of the law.

II. Gallio, upon the first hearing, or rather without any hearing at all, dismisses the cause, and will not take any cognizance of it, Act 18:14, Act 18:15. Paul was going about to make his defence, and to show that he did not teach men to worship God contrary to the law; but the judge, being resolved not to pass any sentence upon this cause, would not give himself the trouble of examining it. Observe,

1. He shows himself very ready to do the part of a judge in any matter that it was proper for him to take cognizance of. He said to the Jews, that were the prosecutors, "If it were a matter of wrong, or wicked lewdness, - if you could charge the prisoner with theft or fraud, with murder or rapine, or any act of immorality, - I should think myself bound to bear with you in your complaints, though they were clamorous and noisy;" for the rudeness of the petitioners was no good reason, if their cause was just, why they should not have justice done them. It is the duty of magistrates to right the injured, and to animadvert upon the injurious; and, if the complaint be not made with all the decorum that might be, yet they should hear it out. But,

2. He will by no means allow them to make a complaint to him of a thing that was not within his jurisdiction (Act 18:15): "If it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look you to it: end it among yourselves as you can, but I will be no judge of such matters; you shall neither burden my patience with the hearing of it, nor burden my conscience with giving judgment upon it;" and therefore, when they were urgent and pressing to be heard, he drove them from the judgment-seat (Act 18:16), and ordered another cause to be called. Now, (1.) Here was something right in Gallio's conduct, and praise-worthy - that he would not pretend to judge of things he did not understand; that he left the Jews to themselves in matters relating to their own religion, but yet would not let them, under pretence of that, run down Paul, and abuse him; or, at least, would not himself be the tool of their malice, to give judgment against him. He looked upon the matter to be not within his jurisdiction, and therefore would not meddle in it. But, (2.) It was certainly wrong to speak so slightly of a law and religion which he might have known to be of God, and with which he ought to have acquainted himself. In what way God is to be worshipped, whether Jesus be the Messiah, whether the gospel be a divine revelation, were not questions of words and names, as he scornfully and profanely called them. They are questions of vast importance, and in which, if he had understood them himself aright, he would have seen himself nearly concerned. He speaks as if he boasted of his ignorance of the scriptures, and took a pride in it; as if it were below him to take notice of the law of God, or make any enquiries concerning it.

III. The abuse done to Sosthenes, and Gallio's unconcernedness in it, Act 18:17. 1. The parties put a great contempt upon the court, when they took Sosthenes and beat him before the judgment-seat. Many conjectures there are concerning this matter, because it is uncertain who this Sosthenes was, and who the Greeks were that abused him. It seems most probable that Sosthenes was a Christian, and Paul's particular friend, that appeared for him on this occasion, and probably had taken care of his safety, and conveyed him away, when Gallio dismissed the cause; so that, when they could not light on Paul, they fell foul on him who protected him. It is certain that there was one Sosthenes that was a friend of Paul, and well known at Corinth; it is likely he was a minister, for Paul calls him his brother, and joins him with himself in his first epistle to the church at Corinth (Co1 1:1), as he does Timothy in his second, and it is probable that this was he; he is said to be a ruler of the synagogue, either joint-ruler with Crispus (Act 18:8), or a ruler of one synagogue, as Crispus was of another. As for the Greeks that abused him, it is very probable that they were either Hellenist Jews, or Jewish Greeks, those that joined with the Jews in opposing the gospel (Act 18:4, Act 18:6), and that the native Jews put them on to do it, thinking it would in them be less offensive. They were so enraged against Paul that they beat Sosthenes; and so enraged against Gallio, because he would not countenance the prosecution, that they beat him before the judgment-seat, whereby they did, in effect, tell him that they cared not for him; if he would not be their executioner, they would be their own judges. 2. The court put no less a contempt upon the cause, and the persons too. But Gallio cared for none of these things. If by this be meant that he cared not for the affronts of bad men, it was commendable. While he steadily adhered to the laws and rules of equity, he might despise their contempts; but, if it be meant (as I think it is) that he concerned not himself for the abuses done to good men, it carries his indifference too far, and gives us but an ill character of him. Here is wickedness done in the place of judgment (which Solomon complains of, Ecc 3:16), and nothing done to discountenance and suppress it. Gallio, as a judge, ought to have protected Sosthenes, and restrained and punished the Greeks that assaulted him. For a man to be mobbed in the street or in the market, perhaps, may not be easily helped; but to be so in his court, the judgment-seat, the court sitting and not concerned at it, is an evidence that truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter; for he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey, Isa 59:14, Isa 59:15. Those that see and hear of the sufferings of God's people, and have no sympathy with them, nor concern for them, do not pity and pray for the, it being all one to them whether the interests of religion sink or swim, are of the spirit of Gallio here, who, when a good man was abused before his face, cared for none of these things; like those that were at ease in Zion, and were not grieved for the affliction of Joseph (Amo 6:6), like the king and Haman, that sat down to drink when the city Shushan was perplexed, Est 3:15.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act_18:12; Act_18:17

And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection.

Gallio and Paul

The proconsul of Achaia had ended his term of office, and the proconsul appointed by the emperor was Marcus Annaeus Novatus, who, having been adopted by the friendly rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio, had taken the name of Lucius Junius Antaeus Gallio. Very different was the estimate of his contemporaries from that which has made his name since proverbial for indifferentism. The brother of Seneca and the uncle of Luean, he was the most; universally popular member of that distinguished family. No mortal man is so sweet to any single person as he is to all mankind; Even those who love my brother Gallio to the utmost yet do not love him enough, wrote Seneca of him. He was the very flower of pagan courtesy and culture. A Roman with all a Romans dignity and seriousness, and yet with all the grace and versatility of a polished Greek. Whatever the former proconsul had been, he had not been one with whom the Jews could venture to trifle, nor had they ventured to hand Paul over to the secular arm. But now that a new proconsul, well known for his mildness, had arrived, who was perhaps unfamiliar with the duties of his office, and whose desire for popularity might have made him complaisant to prosperous Jews, they thought they could with impunity excite a tumult. Though Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome, their religion was a religio licita; but the religion of this fellow, they urged, was a spurious counterfeit of Judaism which had become a religio illicita by running counter to its Mosaic Law. Such was the charge urged by a hubbub of voices, and as soon as it had become intelligible, Paul was on the point of making his defence. But Gallio was not going to trouble himself by listening to any defence. He took no notice whatever of Paul. With a thorough knowledge of, and respect for, the established laws, but with a genuinely Roman indifference for conciliatory language, he quashed the indictment and ordered his lictors to clear the court. But while we regret this unphilosophic disregard, let us at least do justice to Roman impartiality. In Gallio, in Lycrias, in Felix, in Festus, in the centurion Julius, and even in Pilate, different as were their degrees of rectitude, we cannot but admire the trained judicial insight with which they saw through the subterranean injustice and virulent animosity of the Jews in bringing false charges against innocent men. But the superficiality which judges only by externals always brings its own retribution. The haughty, distinguished and cultivated proconsul would have been to the last degree amazed had anyone told him that so paltry an occurrence would be for ever recorded in history; that it would be the only scene in his life in which posterity would feel a moments interest; that he would owe to it any immortality he possesses; that he had flung away the greatest opportunity of his life when he closed the lips of the Jewish prisoner; that it would be believed for centuries that that prisoner had converted his great brother Seneca to his own execrable superstition; that the parcel of questions about a mere opinion, and names, and a matter of the Jewish law, which he had so disdainfully refused to hear, should hereafter become the most prominent of all questions to the whole civilised world. And Paul may have suspected many of these facts as little as the sweet Gallio did. (Archdeacon Farrar.)

Gallio

In this fragment of apostolic history, notice--

I. Religious intolerance (Act_18:12) is seen in three things--

1. In the reason of their opposition to Paul. Was it because he had violated any law, invaded any human rights, broken the public peace, or insulted the public morals? No, but simply because he had persuaded men to worship God in a way not exactly agreeable to their own views.

2. In the spirit of their opposition. They made insurrection with one accord.

3. In the means of their opposition. Bigotry substitutes abuse for argument and in this case bigots sought to crush by invoking the arm of civil authority.

II. Magisterial propriety. Did Gallio, like Pilate, bow to public wish? No, he would not even entertain the case (Act_18:14-15). He meant that the question of religious differences came not within the authority of a civil magistrate. On this principle the Roman government generally acted. Gallio, as a magistrate, acted justly--

1. Towards himself. The magistrate who interferes with the religious opinions of the people incurs a responsibility too great for any man to bear.

2. To his fellow subjects. Look ye to it. Religion is not to be settled in courts of law, but in courts of conscience.

III. Social retribution. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, and beat him before the judgment seat. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. This case develops--

1. The natural sense of justice in humanity. These Greeks had witnessed Sosthenes wicked endeavours to crush a righteous man, and their sense of justice was outraged; and now their opportunity occurred for vengeance. This sense of justice is a spark from Divinity, and a pledge that one day justice will be done to all.

2. The reproductiveness of evil in man. Sosthenes had dealt out vengeance to Paul, and now it came back to him in a rich harvest. Violence begets violence, etc. The propagating power of evil is immense. Satan cannot cast out Satan. Christ has taught the true theory of this moral expulsion.

3. The power of the gospel. It is more than probable that this is the Sosthenes referred to in 1Co_1:2. So that over this fierce persecutor Pauls gospel so triumphed, that he became a brother in the holy cause.

IV. Lamentable indifference. He cared for none of these things. This can scarcely be nothing more than mere magisterial unconcernedness about religious disputes. As an educated Roman, he regarded the religion of Paul as beneath his notice. Religious indifferentism is one of the greatest and most prevalent evils of this age too, and it is infidelity in its worst form. Mere theoretical infidelity you can put down by argument. But this is beyond the reach of all logic. Religious indifference is--

1. Unreasonable. No question is of such transcendent moment to man as religion, and therefore it is madness on his part to neglect it.

2. Criminal. It is contrary to the wishes and the labours of the holiest men; it involves the abuse of all the means of spiritual improvement; and it is a practical disregard to all the commands of God.

3. Perilous. The danger is great, increasing, but still, thank God, at present avoidable. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The nature and extent of the office of the civil magistrate

If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews--if you would accuse this man of any injustice whereby he had invaded anyones right and property, or could lay to his charge any other villainous action done with a mischievous design, and whereby he had disturbed the public peace--reason would that I should bear with you. I should then be obliged by the duty of my place to take cognisance of your matter. But if it be a question of words, and names, and of your law; if the controversy, as it seems to me, be not about civil but religious matters, as about the Word which Paul preached, and the truth of that Word, and whether it be agreeable to your law--it is none of my business to determine such disputes. And this was a wise answer, and showed that he was well acquainted with the nature and extent of his office; and he was too good a man to lift himself in any party, and to abuse the power which was lodged in his hands by applying it to purposes foreign to the original design of it. The words thus opened, naturally lead me to treat of the nature and extent of the office of the civil magistrate.

I. Then let us consider the end and design of civil government. It is plain that civil government was instituted for the preservation and advancement of mens civil interests, for the better security of their lives and liberties and external possessions. Men soon became sensible of the necessity of civil government for these ends, from the inconveniences they suffered by a private life independent on each other. The proper business of the magistrate is to preserve the external peace and the temporal good of the community; to protect every man in his just right and property (1Th_4:6). But then it is to be considered that these transgressions are subject to be punished by the civil magistrate in a civil capacity only, and not in a religious one. They fall under his cognisance, as they are injurious to mens civil interests, and not as they have an inherent turpitude in them, and are transgressions of the Divine law; for in that capacity, I conceive, they are out of the magistrates power, and not cognisable before any courts of human judicature. The not observing this distinction has introduced no small confusion in this subject. But because those vices which are so many transgressions of Gods laws have also a natural tendency to injure our neighbour in his civil interests, and to disturb the good order and government of the world, therefore it unavoidably happens that the magistrate, in the due execution of his office, does indirectly intermeddle with religion. But though we cannot actually separate the ill influence any vice has upon the society we live in, from its being a transgression of some Divine law, yet in our minds we may make this separation, and consider every vice as a mixed action, as a transgression of the laws of man, and of the laws of God, In the first capacity only it is subject to human judicatures; in the second, it is cognisable only before the tribunal of heaven. For this reason, because vice and wickedness are punishable by the civil magistrate only upon a civil account, sins are differently estimated and differently punished by human and by Divine laws. Human laws make an estimate of sins from the damage they do to private persons, or to the public good, and inflict the greatest punishment upon those sins which are most injurious in this respect. And, therefore, if there be any sins wherein society is no way concerned, which it neither feels nor is affected with, the magistrate has nothing to do with punishing them. Consequently, secret intentions and designs of wickedness, treasonable thoughts, rebellious wishes, and seditious purposes, if they never break out into acts, can never be liable to civil punishments. But with regard to the laws of God the case is far otherwise. He takes an estimate of our sins by other measures, from those degrees of light and knowledge against which the offence was committed, and often punishes those sins most which are least, or not at all, censured by the civil power. Thus anger and revenge with Him is murder, and lustful thoughts and desires, adultery. And other actions there are which, though justly punishable by the civil power, are in their own nature guiltless, and do not displease God, but by being trangressions of that general law, of paying all due obedience to those whom He has set over us.

II. The end and design of religion. Though religion is a great friend to civil government, and the practice of the duties which that enjoins tends very much to our present happiness, and makes this world a much more easy place than it would be without it, yet all this is but remotely the effect of religion, and makes no part of its main and principal design. Religion, in a true sense, and as the word itself imports, is an obligation upon us to God. And, therefore, though men formed themselves into societies for civil reasons, they did not do it upon any religious account; because religion as it relates to God is transacted between a mans self and God, and is what nobody else is concerned in. So that it is neither necessary in itself nor essential to true religion that great numbers of men should meet together and be incorporated in societies for the better discovery, or the more due exercise of it. Hence it is that they who lived before the institution of civil governments, or the foundation of commonwealths, were as famous for their piety and religion as any who have been since. In this state of nature, I mean before the institution of civil government, religion, as it related to God alone, had no other hold upon men but from the fear and reverence of God, and was a perfect stranger to all human power and outward force. In this state no man whatever could require me to conform to his judgment on religious matters, nor could I require him to conform to mine. This was the case of religion in a state of nature. Let us next see whether any alteration was made in this case by the institution of civil government. Now since those wrongs which men daily received from one another, and which first moved them to eater into societies, did not affect their religion, but their lives, and liberty, and goods, it follows that when they waived their natural freedom, and combined together, they did not at all submit themselves in religious matters to the will of the civil magistrate, as they submitted their persons and properties to be disposed of by him for the obtaining the end of society, the mutual defence and preservation of one another. Men cannot abandon the care of their souls as they may that of their bodies and estates, and blindly leave it to the magistrate to prescribe what faith or worship they shall embrace. And therefore the magistrate ought not to insist upon terms of purely a religious nature with those who are under his government, or exercise his power and authority over them in this respect. This will quickly appear by taking a view of the chief and principal parts of religion. To begin, then, with morality and virtue, which, though unhappily distinguished from religion, are the chief and main things wherein it consists. These are founded in the eternal nature of things, whereby some things are evidently fit, and others as evidently unfit to be done whatever the consequence of them be here. This being plainly the nature of things, we justly conclude it to be the will of God who made us what we are, and put this difference between some things and others, that we should observe this difference in oar actions. And herein we are to be directed by our own reason or conscience: we are accountable to God alone. But what if anyone upon pretence of conscience, and to show his liberty, should commit any matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, invade anyones property, or disturb the public peace? Why, then, I say, no pretence of religion or conscience can screen him from the civil power. He ought to be restrained and punished. But then he does not suffer upon a religious, but upon a civil account. If we place religion in the belief of any set of doctrines, here, too, every man must judge for himself. The magistrate has nothing to do to interpose in this case, to apply force of any kind to bring men over to any particular persuasion. The peace and good order of society are the only points which he is to take care of, and since these are as consistent with mens holding different opinions in religion, as they are with their being of different sentiments in other matters, the magistrate is no more concerned to intermeddle in religious disputes than he is in those of philosophy, law, or physic. Indeed, if men hold any opinions in religion which are destructive of the peace and quiet of the world, and act in persuance of these opinions, their actions then are of a civil and not of a religious nature, and they render themselves obnoxious to the civil power. For the magistrate to interpose and make himself a judge and an avenger in affairs which are purely of a religious nature is to trangress the bounds of his duty and to invade the prerogative of God; it is to judge and misuse the servants of another master who are not at all- accountable to him. For nothing can be more clear and certain than that as religion has God only for its Author, so it is properly His care and concern only. But such attempts as these are not only wicked and unjust, but very foolish and fruitless, as will appear if we consider that the nature and the virtue too of all religion consists in a free choice, in the consent of our minds, in the sincerity of our hearts, in our being fully persuaded of the truth of what we believe, and of the goodness of what we practise. But of what use can human laws, enforced by civil penalties, be in all this? They may make me do things which are in my power, and depend upon my will; but to believe this or that to be true is not in my power, nor depends upon my will, but upon the light and evidence and information which I have. And will civil discouragements, fines, stripes and imprisonment enlighten the understanding, convince mens minds of error, and inform them of the truth? Can they have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgment they have framed of things? Nothing can do this but reason and argument. And therefore if the magistrate interposes here, and either chooses a religion for me, or forces me to practise that which I have chosen with temporal rewards and punishments, he destroys my religion and spoils the virtue of whatever I do under that name. But, further, as religion consists in such a belief and practice, as we in our consciences are persuaded to be best and most acceptable to God, as it lies in the integrity of the heart, so it can be subject only to the judgment of the great God whose prerogative it is to be a searcher of the heart and a fryer of the reins; who sees the secret springs of our actions and knows our thoughts and intentions afar off. Upon which account no man upon earth can be a judge in religious matters, nor take upon him the cognisance of this cause. By this time I hope it appears that Gallio acted wise and conscientious part in this affair. For most certain it is, that the duty of the magistrate is confined to the care of the civil and temporal good of his people, and does not extend to their spiritual and eternal affairs. It is nothing to him what false and erroneous opinions men hold, what ridiculous and absurd doctrines they profess, or, in a word, what they believe or disbelieve in religion, so long as hereby they do no prejudice to their neighbour, nor make any alteration in mens civil rights, nor disturb the public peace and quiet. But here it may be objected, Is the magistrate to show no zeal for the honour of God and the authority of His laws? To this I answer, that since God, who is most certainly the properest Judge in this case, and best knows what are the fittest means to be made use of for these ends, has not thought fit to enforce His laws with any other sanctions but the rewards and punishments of a future and invisible state, nor to promote His honour and true religion by any other motives but these, what authority has any man to make any alteration in what God has established, and to enforce His laws with any other sanctions than what He Himself has appointed? And as to true religion and a right belief, every man is orthodox to himself, and thinks his own religion to be true; and, therefore, if this be any argument why the magistrate should use force in promoting his own religion, it will plead as strongly for false religions as for the true one. As for Gods honour, He Himself is the best guardian of it, and will most certainly take care of it in His own time and way, for He is a jealous God. But then I add, that for men to be restrained from these vices by the power and authority of the civil magistrate, and out of fear of his sword, is no honour to God whatever it may be to Caesar. To conclude: Since religion and civil government are, in their original, and business, and in everything else belonging to them, thus perfectly distinct and entirely different from each other, it would put an end to many controversies, and make very much for the peace and quiet both of Church and State, if men would observe this distinction, and each party would keep within their respective bounds. This would hinder them from clashing and interfering with one another, and would prevent those heats and animosities, those acts of violence and rapine, cruelty and oppression that have abounded in the Christian world upon account of religion. And let the magistrate, too, confine himself to his own proper business and attend to the worldly welfare of the commonwealth, and instead of exercising his power in binding other mens consciences by human laws, let him take care to conform his own conscience to the laws of God, and direct all his counsels and endeavours to promote universally the civil welfare of all his subjects. And let him not think that he bears the sword in vain unless he employs it in the cause of God and religion. It was not put into his hands for this use, nor can it be applied to this purpose with any good effect. (B. Ibbot, D. D.)

Gallio

illustrates--

I. The laudable administration of justice in his treatment of the point of complaint (verse 12-15). He rejects it because it referred to a purely religious matter.

II. The censurable administration of justice in his conduct at the violence of the Greeks (verse 16, 17). Here he shows himself indifferent and unfair. Magistrates have in ecclesiastical controversies to distinguish between what is above law and what is against the law, and have to resent what is unlawful on whatever side it happens. (Lisco.)

Reports of Christian service

1. The report which is given of Pauls work in verse 13 is exactly the report which is being given today by hostile journalists and critics. Do not take any bad or worldly mans report of any Christian service he may have attended. They lack the one thing needful--sympathy. No man is qualified to report a religious meeting who is not himself religious. He can tell who spoke and give an abstract of what was said; but there will be wanting from it the aroma, the heavenliness, which gave it all its gracious power. This has a wide bearing upon all matters religious and theological. The Jews heard Paul speak and they said, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law--that is, contrary to their reading of the law. The law is one thing, and my reading of it another. So with the Bible: the Bible is one thing, and the preachers reading of it is another. Have no fear of perverting Jews misrepresenting inspired apostles and bringing Gods doctrine to ruin. The form will change; and yet when all the words have been rearranged we shall find the inner, holy doctrine untouched.

2. The Jews were unanimous in their insurrection. Unanimity is nothing; sincerity is nothing. Sincerity is only good when rightly directed, and unanimity is worthless if moving not in the direction of truth. Paul stood alone, so far as men were concerned, on more occasions than one. Said he, in one instance, No man stood with me … notwithstanding the Lord stood with me. Let us take care, then, lest we mistake human unanimity for Divine counsel.

3. And now Gallio, much maligned by those who do not know him, comes into the story. He has been set up as a type of the careless man. And base creatures have been told that they were Gallios! They never were so honoured in their lives! Gallio would not touch them with the tip of his fingers! Gallio simply knew his business and attended to it, and limited himself by it; and his carelessness was a distinct evidence of his high qualification for his office. Yet I would chide even Gallio for the unintentional injury he has done (verse 14) in depriving the Church of another speech by the greatest speaker that ever served the cause of Christ. What he would have said to that sweet Gallio who can tell? The substance of his speech we have in all the other speeches; but we do wonder with what accidental beauty and subtlety of allusion he would have addressed the sweetest heart that ever listened to him.

4. Gallio used a phrase which brought him within lines which we wish could have enclosed him forever. Speaking from his point of view, he said, But if it be a question of words and names. Could Gallio have heard Paul upon the Word, who can tell what would have occurred? But are we not always putting away from ourselves great opportunities? Do we not feel weary just when the discourse is sharpening itself into the eloquence that would touch our mind like light, and our heart like a wand of love? The next sentence might have saved you, but just then your ears waxed heavy and you did not hear! There may be careless people notwithstanding the misapplication of the name of Gallio. Is it true that you care for none of those things? Then for what do you care? (J. Parker, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 18:12-13. When Gallio was the deputy — Greek, Γαλλιωνος ανθυπατευοντος, Gallio being proconsul; of Achaia — Of which Corinth was the chief city. This Gallio, the brother of the famous Seneca, is much commended both by him and by other writers, for the sweetness and generosity of his temper, and easiness of his behaviour. Yet one thing he lacked! But he knew it not, and had no concern about it! The Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul — His great success at Corinth, and in Peloponnesus, in converting the Gentiles to the faith of Christ, provoked the Jews to the highest pitch of rage, especially when they found he led his converts to despise the institutions of Moses, by assuring them that they might be justified and saved through faith in Christ, without the use of these institutions: and brought him to the judgment-seat — Of Gallio; saying, This fellow — The author of insufferable mischiefs, here and all over the country; persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law — It seems Paul had taught that, the law of Moses being now abrogated, men were no longer bound to worship God with sacrifices and washings, and other bodily services, but in spirit and in truth. And this doctrine being deemed contrary to the law of Moses, the unbelieving Jews, in this tumultuous manner, brought Paul, the teacher of it, before the proconsul, in order to have him punished, as one who, by opposing the law of Moses, had acted contrary to the laws of the empire, which tolerated the Jews in the exercise of their religion.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Arraignment before the Proconsul Gallio, Act_18:12-17.

A new proconsul has just arrived at Corinth from Rome, and the Jewish experiment is to be made whether the Roman power cannot be called in to end Paul’s Corinthian ministry, perhaps his life.

12. Gallio—Marcus Annaeus Novatus was the brother of the celebrated philosopher, Seneca. Being, according to Roman custom, adopted into the family of the rhetorician Gallio, he assumed the name Junius Annaeus Gallio. His brother, Seneca, given him the highest character for a fascinating amiableness. “No one of mortals could be so dear even to a single friend as he was to all.” And the poet Statius gives him the epithet “sweet Gallio.” It is said, but not well authenticated, that he, like his brother Seneca, had the honour of death from the cruelty of Nero. Tacitus says, “He was appalled at the taking of his brother’s limb, and became a suppliant for his own.” Jerome states that he committed suicide A.D. 65.

Deputy—(See note on Act_13:7.) Here is disclosed another instance of Luke’s minute accuracy. Gallio was deputed by the Senate during the reign of Claudius, and was, therefore, a proconsul, as Luke says. But under the preceding reigns the ruler was sent by the emperor, and so was not a proconsul but a legatus. There is historical evidence that Gallio was in Achaia about the time of Paul’s visit, and he appears to have resigned his office on account of ill health, proclaiming that it was “a disease not of his body, but of the climate.”

Insurrection—An onset upon him.

One accord—Unanimously and spontaneously; but doubtless with Sosthenes, the new president of the synagogue, at their head.

Brought… judgment seat—Nothing, it would seem, but the extravagance of passion in these unhappy men could have prompted to this bold course. For the Jews as a race were under the displeasure of the emperor at this time, who had lately banished all from Rome. They could ill have anticipated that a proconsul fresh from that same Rome would be their very hearty friend.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act_18:12. Gallio.—Gallio became proconsul towards the end of Claudius’s reign, about A.D. 53. His character, as depicted by ancient writers, corresponded with that revealed in Luke’s narrative. “He was the very flower of pagan courtesy and pagan culture—a Roman with all a Roman’s dignity and seriousness, and yet with all the grace and versatility of a polished Greek” (Farrar). Eusebius asserts that he committed suicide towards the end of Nero’s reign, before the death of his brother Seneca; but as Tacitus (Annals, xv. 73) reports him alive after that event, Dion Cassius is more likely to be correct in saying that he was put to death by order of Nero. Deputy, or proconsul of Achaia.—See on Act_13:7. Achaia, which included all Greece south of Macedonia, was a proconsular province under Augustus; under Tiberius an imperial province with a procurator (Tacitus, Annals, i. 76); under Claudius after A.D. 44 a senatorial province with a proconsul as governor. Another instance of Luke’s accuracy. Made insurrection.—Rather, rose up.

Act_18:13. This fellow.—The expression correctly enough states the feelings of disdain entertained by Paul’s prosecutors, though the word “fellow” has no place in the original.

Act_18:17. All the Greeks.—The best texts have simply all, though “the Greeks,” not “the Jews” (Ewald, Hofmann, Schürer), is the proper supplement.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_18:12-17

Paul before Gallio; or, a Case of Unsuccessful Persecution

I. Persecution attempted.—

1. The prime instigators of this hostile movement. These were the Jews whom Paul had defeated in argument, causing them to oppose and blaspheme (Act_18:6), and from whom he had separated by withdrawing from their synagogue and exercising his ministry in the house of Justus (Act_18:7). To this antagonistic course they were doubtless incited by a variety of motives, as, e.g.,

(1) their hatred of the gospel;

(2) their dislike of Paul the apostate Rabbi;

(3) their chagrin at the conversion of Crispus; and

(4) their annoyance at the favour which the new cause was finding among the Greeks. “It must be acknowledged,” says Ramsay (St. Paul, etc., p. 256), “that Paul had not a very conciliatory way with the Jews when he became angry. The shaking out of his garments was undoubtedly a very exasperating gesture; and the occupying of a meeting-house next door to the synagogue, with the former archisynagogos as a prominent officer, was more than human nature could stand.… It is not strange that the next stage of proceedings was in a law court.” Perhaps not; but this seems hard on Paul, who would have been almost superhuman if he had not sometimes lost his temper with his much-beloved countrymen.

2. The exact date of this hostile movement. “When Gallio was the deputy, or proconsul, of Achaia,” A.D. 53 (see “Critical Remarks”). Under Tiberius an imperial province governed by a procurator, Achaia, when Claudius assumed the purple (A.D. 44), was restored to the Senate and ruled by a proconsul. Gallio’s predecessor had ended his term of government, and Gallio himself had just entered on office, when this persecution arose. The Jews had probably been tempted to try this assault upon their obnoxious countryman because of Gallio’s inexperience and reputed easiness of character, the first of which might make him willing to curry favour with the Jews, while the second might lead him to believe their complaints without investigating whether these rested on any good foundation. Originally called Marcus Annæus Novatus, and afterwards known as Lucius Junius Annæus Gallio in consequence of having assumed the name of Lucius Junius Gallio, a friendly rhetorician who had adopted him, Gallio was brother to the well-known philosopher Seneca, who wrote of him: “No mortal man is so sweet to any person as he is to all mankind,” and “even those who love my brother Gallio to the very utmost of their power yet do not love him enough”—language which, if it could scarcely be accepted as unimpeachable evidence of Gallio’s merit, at least testified to the strength of Seneca’s affection.

3. The special form of this hostile movement. A unanimous “insurrection,” or uprising of the Jewish populace against the apostle, in which, having arrested him, they fetched him before the governor’s tribunal, as their kinsmen in Thessalonica had dragged him before the city rulers (Act_17:6), and as the owners of the divining maid in Philippi had brought him and Silas before the magistrates (Act_16:20). The accusation in this case ran in different terms from the indictments in those. At Philippi the apostle had been charged with subverting Roman customs in religion; in Thessalonica the complainants urged that he had acted contrary to the decrees of Cæsar; here at Corinth the impeachment alleged that he persuaded men to worship God contrary to law—not of the empire (Spence, Plumptre), but of Moses (Conybeare and Howson, Farrar, Alford, Hackett, Holtzmann, Lechler), since under Roman rule Judaism was a religio licita, and Paul’s teaching in his countrymen’s eyes constituted a violation of the Hebrew Lawgiver’s precepts.

II. Persecution foiled.—Arraigned before the judgment seat of Gallio—a chair or tribunal, three times mentioned in the story, from which Roman justice was dispensed—Paul was about to open his mouth in self-defence, when Gallio interrupted him, quashed the proceedings, and so protected the apostle, but lost to the world and the Church a speech which the latter at least would willingly have heard.

1. The ground of his procedure he made clearly known to the prosecutors.

(1) The case they had brought before him lay not within his civil jurisdiction. Had it been a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, an act of injustice or legal injury, such as fraud or dishonesty or wicked crime—i.e., a moral offence or deed of wickedness—he would have felt it his duty to bear with them and investigate their charges.

(2) The case, however, was altogether outside his functions. So far as he could see, it concerned questionings or disputes about a word, or doctrine (Hackett), about names, as, e.g., whether Jesus had been rightly or wrongly called Messiah, and about their own law, whether it was correctly observed or not; and these were affairs they could look to themselves. As for him, he had no mind to be a judge of such matters, even if they lay within his judicial domain, which he practically acknowledged they did not. To infer that his action was in any way dictated by secret sympathy for the Christian religion would be, to say the least, extremely hazardous.

2. The end of his procedure was that he summarily quashed the indictment, announced that the prosecutors had no case, and ordered the lictors to clear the court. “We may be sure they made short work of ejecting the frustrated, but muttering, mob on whose disappointed malignity, if his countenance at all reflected the feelings expressed by his words, he must have looked down from his lofty tribunal with undisguised contempt” (Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul, i. 569).

III. Persecution reversed.—Before the court was cleared the tables were turned.

1. The ruler of the synagogue was trounced. The Jews who had hastened before the governor’s tribunal in hope of seeing Paul scourged reluctantly beheld their own leader beat. This leader was Sosthenes, who had probably succeeded (Act_18:8) if he had not been a colleague of Crispus. There is no solid reason for supposing (Theodoret, Calvin, Ewald, Hofmann) him to have been the Sosthenes our brother mentioned in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians (Act_1:1).

2. The parties who trounced him were the mob. Not the Jews (Ewald, Hofmann), who suspected their champion had bungled their case through secret sympathy with Paul—which, by the way, forms the ground for supposing him to be “Sosthenes our brother.” Certainly not the Christians, who, had it been they, would have behaved most unworthily (Mat_5:44), but the Gentiles or Greeks, who may have been impelled to such a violent demonstration, either because Sosthenes showed himself refractory and unwilling to depart from the basilica, or because they felt indignant at the Jews for having trumped up a baseless accusation against an innocent man, whom besides, through his having withdrawn from the synagogue, they regarded as in a manner belonging to themselves.

3. The governor looked on with indifference. “My lord Gallio,” as his brother styled him, was as completely unconcerned about the whipping which the Greeks gave to Sosthenes as he had been about the charges of the Jews preferred against Paul. Perhaps the whipping was, after all, not a violent affair. “So long as they were not guilty of any serious infraction of the peace, it was nothing to him how the Greek gamins amused themselves” (Farrar). If, however, it amounted to bodily injury, then Gallio’s supercilious contempt was not only wrong in itself but stood in flagrant contradiction to his pompous speech (Act_18:14).

Lessons.—

1. The lies told against Christianity and Christians by their enemies.

2. The true province of the civil magistrate, secular affairs.

3. The retribution which often comes on those who devise evil against others.

4. The indifference of many to both religion and morality.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act_18:12-17. A Court Scene in Corinth.

I. The place of judgment.—The agora or market place. Justice should always be dispensed in public, in order to prevent abuses.

II. The person of the prisoner.—Paul, a preacher of the gospel. Preachers have often been called upon to answer for their crimes in publishing the good news of salvation.

III. The terms of the indictment.—That Paul taught men to worship God contrary to law. It is no sin either to worship God or to teach men so; yet are all ways of worshipping God not equally right.

IV. The rank of the prosecutor.—Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue. The Church’s dignitaries no less than the world’s great men have sometimes been found in the ranks of persecutors.

V. The character of the judge.—Gallio, an indifferent and haughty cynic. Rank and power often lead to such unbecoming dispositions.

VI. The issues of the trial.—

1. To the prisoner, acquittal.

2. To the prosecutor, a beating.

3. To both, perhaps, the unexpected.

A Remarkable Trio; or, a character study.

I. Paul, the representative of religious zeal.

II. Sosthenes, the incarnation of religious intolerance.

III. Gallio, the type of religious indifference.

Sosthenes and Gallio; or, Paul’s accuser and judge.

I. The accuser.—Sosthenes.

1. His person. Successor of Crispus. Perhaps afterwards with Paul in Ephesus and Macedonia (1Co_1:1).

2. His motives. Mixed.

(1) Responsibility for the dignity of the synagogue.

(2) Anger at Crispus’s defection.

(3) Displeasure at Paul’s success.

3. His action. Having caused Paul to be arrested, he brought the apostle before Gallio’s judgment seat. Often easier to defeat a man at law than to overcome him in logic.

4. His indictment. He accused Paul of persuading men to worship contrary to the law. No civil crime imputed to Paul. Charged with propagating illegal tenets in religion.

II. The judge—Gallio.

1. A remarkable man. Brother of Seneca.

2. A remarkable character. A person of talent and great amiability.

3. A remarkable utterance. “If, indeed, it were a matter of wrong,” etc. Explain what this means (see “Critical Remarks” and “Homiletical Analysis”).

4. A remarkable blunder. Looking on with indifference while Sosthenes was being maltreated.

Gallio’s Action.—“This action of the Imperial government in protecting Paul from the Jews, and (if we are right) declaring freedom in religious matters, seems to have been the crowning fact in determining Paul’s conduct. According to our view, the residence at Corinth was an epoch in Paul’s life. As regards his doctrine, he became more clearly conscious of its character, as well as more precise and definite in his presentation of it; and as regards practical work, he became more clear as to his aim, and the means of attaining the aim—namely, that Christianity should be spread through the civilised—i.e., the Roman—world (not as excluding, but as preparatory to, the entire world, Col_3:11), using the freedom of speech which the Imperial policy as declared by Gallio seemed inclined to permit. The action of Gallio, as we understand it, seems to pave the way for Paul’s appeal a few years later from the petty, outlying court of the procurator of Judæa, who was always much under the influence of the ruling party in Jerusalem, to the supreme tribunal of the empire.”—Ramsay, St. Paul, etc., pp. 259, 260.

Act_18:14-17. Gallio’s Behaviour.

I. How far it was right.—

1. In declining to interfere in the settlement of religious questions.

2. In expressing his readiness to investigate civil complaints.

II. How far it was wrong.—

1. In not troubling himself to arrive at the truth about Paul.

2. In taking no cognisance of injustice towards Sosthenes.

Gallio, the Civil Magistrate.

I. His judicial equity and impartiality.

II. His legal intelligence and discrimination.

III. His moral and religious indifference.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

18:12-13 The governor of Achaia, Junio Gallio, was the older brother of the Roman philosopher Seneca (Seneca was a tutor to Emperor Nero). An inscription indicating that he was governor around AD 51–52 helps to date Paul’s visit in Corinth to about that time.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Act 18:12. Γαλλίωνος) This Gallio was brother of Seneca, and was commended by Seneca and others for his yielding disposition and sweet temper. The action of Gallio in this passage is in accordance with such a character.—ἀνθυπατεύοντος) Achaia was then strictly a proconsular province [ἀνθυπαος = proconsul].—’Αχαΐας, of Achaia) of which Corinth was the metropolis.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_18:12-13. Achaia (i.e. according to the Roman division of provinces, the whole of Greece proper, including the Peloponnesus, so that by its side Macedonia, Illyria, Epirus, and Thessaly formed the province Macedonia, and these two provinces comprehended the whole Grecian territory), which originally had been a senatorial province (Dio Cass. liii. p. 704), but by Tiberius was made an imperial one (Tacit. Ann. i. 76), and was again by Claudius (Suet. Claud. 25) converted into a senatorial province (see Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 190, 13), and had in the years 53 and 54 for its proconsul (ἀνθύπατος, see on Act_13:7) Jun. Ann. Gallio, who had assumed this name (his proper name was M. Ann. Novatus) from L. Jun. Gallio, the rhetorician, by whom he was adopted. He was a brother of the philosopher L. Ann. Seneca (Tacit. Ann. xv. 73, xvi. 17), and was likewise put to death by Nero. See Lipsius, in Senec. prooem. 2, and ep. 104; Winer, Realw.

κατεπέστ.] they stood forth against him, is found neither in Greek writers nor in the LXX.

παρὰ τ. νόμ.] i.e. against the Jewish law. See Act_18:15.[79] To the Jews the exercise of religion according to their laws was conceded by the Roman authority. Hence the accusers expected of the proconsul measures to be taken against Paul, whose religious doctrines they found at variance with the legal standpoint of Mosaism. Luke gives only the chief point of the complaint. For details, see Act_18:15.

[79] They do not mean the law of the state; nor yet do they express themselves in a double sense (Lange, apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 240). Gallio well knew what ὁ νόμος signified in the mouth of a Jew.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 18:12 . ἀνθ ., cf. Act 13:7 , another proof of St. Luke’s accuracy, Achaia from B.C. 27 (when it had been separated from Macedonia, to which it had been united since B.C. 146, and made into a separate province) had been governed by a proconsul. In A.D. 15 Tiberius had reunited it with Macedonia and Mysia, and it was therefore under an imperial legatus as an imperial province, Tac., Ann. , i., 76. But a further change occurred when Claudius, A.D. 44, made it again a senatorial province under a proconsul, Suet., Claudius , 25. On subsequent changes in its government see Ramsay, “Achaia,” Hastings’ B.D. Corinth was the chief city of the province Achaia, and so probably chosen for the residence of the governors. Γαλλίωνος : we have no direct statement save that of St. Luke that Gallio governed Achaia. Gallio’s brother Seneca tells us that Gallio caught fever in Achaia, Ep. Mor. , 104, and took a voyage for change of air (Ramsay, St. Paul , p. 258) (see also the same reference in Zahn, Einleitung , ii., p. 634, and as against Clemen, Ramsay, St. Paul , p. 260), a remark which Ramsay justly regards as a corroboration of St. Luke; on the date see Ramsay St. Paul , p. 258, and Expositor March, 1897, p. 206; “Corinth,” Hastings’ B.D. 1 , p. 481; Turner, “Chronology of the New Testament,” ibid . Gallio could not have entered on the proconsulship of Achaia before 44 A.D., and probably not before 49 or 50: Ramsay thinks during the summer of A.D. 52 Renan and Lightfoot, A.D. 53), whilst recently Schürer (so Wendt, 1899) places the proconsulship of Gallio between 51 55 A.D., Zw. Th. , 1898, p. 41 f. as against O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte , who places it before 49 A.D.). The description of Gallio in Acts is quite consistent with what we know of his personal character, and with his attitude as a Roman official. Statius, Silv. , ii., 7, 32, speaks of him as “dulcis Gallio,” and his brother Seneca writes of him: “Nemo mortalium uni tam dulcis est quam hic omnious,” Quæst. Nat. , iv., Præf., and see other references and testimonies, Renan, Saint Paul , p. 221, and “Gallio,” B.D. 2 It is quite possible that the Jews took advantage or his easy-going nature and affability, or, if he had recently arrived in the province, of his inexperience. Gallio’s Hellenic culture may have lea to his selection for the post (Renan, u. s. , p. 222). The notion that as a Stoic he was friendly disposed towards the Christians, and on that account rejected the accusations of the Jews, is quite without foundation, see Zöckler, in loco . The name of Junius Gallio was an assumed one; its bearer, whose real name was Marcus Annæus Novatus, had been adopted by the rhetorician, L. Junius Gallio, a friend of his father. κατεπέστησαν , cf. Act 16:22 , verb, only found here. Rendall, in loco , renders “made a set assault upon Paul,” expressing the culmination of the Jewish hostility in a set assault (not against , as in A. and R.V.). ὁμοθ ., as in Act 15:25 . τὸ βῆμα : of the proconsul, probably erected in some public place, a movable seat o judgment.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The wicked are never weary of evil doing, but the Lord mocketh their endeavors marvelously.

That is, of Greece, yet the Romans did not call him Deputy of Greece, but of Achaia, because the Romans brought the Greeks into subjection by the Achaians, which in those days were Princes of Greece, as Pausanias recordeth.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

when Gallio was the deputy--"the proconsul." See on Act 13:7. He was brother to the celebrated philosopher SENECA, the tutor of Nero, who passed sentence of death on both.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 12. When Gallio was the deputy of Achaia] The Romans comprehended, under the name of Achaia, all that part of Greece which lay between Thessaly and the southernmost coasts of Peloponnesus. Pausanias, in Attic. vii. 16, says that the Romans were accustomed to send a governor into that country, and that they called him the governor of Achaia, not of Greece; because the Achaeans, when they subdued Greece, were the leaders in all the Grecian affairs see also Suetonius, in his life of Claudius, cap. xxv., and Dio Cassius, lx. 24. Edit. Reimari.

Deputy] ανθυπατευοντος, serving the office of ανθυπατος, or deputy: see Clark's note on "Ac 13:7".

Gallio] This deputy, or proconsul, was eldest brother to the celebrated Lucius Annaeus Seneca, the stoic philosopher, preceptor of Nero, and who is so well known among the learned by his works. The name of Gallio, was at first Marcus Annaeus Novatus; but, having been adopted in the family of Gallio, he took the name of Lucius Junius Gallio. He, and Annaeus Mela his brother, father of the poet Lucan, shared in the disgrace of their brother Seneca; and by this tyrant, Nero, whose early years were so promising, the three brothers were put to death; see Tacitus, Annal. lib. xv. 70, and xvi. 17. It was to this Gallio that Seneca dedicates his book De Ira. Seneca describes him as a man of the most amiable mind and manners: "Quem nemo non parum amat, etiam qui amare plus non potent; nemo mortalium uni tam dulcis est, quam hic omnibus: cum interim tanta naturalis boni vis est, uti artem simulationemque non redoleat:" vide Senec. Praefat. ad Natural. Quaest. 4. He was of the sweetest disposition, affable to all, and beloved by every man.

Statius, Sylvar. lib. ii. 7. ver. 30, Ode on the Birthday of Lucan, says not a little in his favour, in a very few words:-

Lucanum potes imputare terris;

Hoc plus quam Senecam dedisse mundo,

Aut dulcem generasse Gallionem.

You may consider nature as having made greater efforts in producing Lucan, than it has done in producing Seneca, or even the amiable GALLIO.

And brought him to the judgment seat] They had no power to punish any person in the Roman provinces, and therefore were obliged to bring their complaint before the Roman governor. The powers that be are ordained of God. Had the Jews possessed the power here, Paul had been put to death!

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

12. When Gallio. Either the change of the deputy did encourage the Jews to wax more proud and insolent, as froward men use to abuse new things that they may procure some tumult, or else hoping that the judge would favor them, they brake the peace and silence at a sudden, which had continued one whole year. And the sum of the accusation is, that Paul went about to bring in a false kind of worship contrary to the law. Now, the question is, whether they spake of the law of Moses or of the rites used in the empire of Rome. Because this latter thing seemeth to me to be cold, I do rather receive that, that they burdened Paul with this crime that he brake and altered the worship prescribed in the law of God, and that to the end they might hit him in the teeth with novelty or innovation. And surely Paul had been worthy to have been condemned if he had gone about any such thing; but forasmuch as it is most certain that they did treacherously and wickedly slander the holy man, they endeavored to cover an evil cause with an honest excuse. We know how straitly the Lord commandeth in the law, how he will have his servants to worship him. Therefore, to depart from that rule is sacrilege. But forasmuch as Paul never meant to add to or take away anything from the law, he is unjustly accused of this fault. Whence we gather, that though the faithful themselves never so uprightly and blamelessly, yet can they not escape false and slanderous reports until they be admitted to purge themselves. But Paul was not only unworthily and falsely slandered by the adversaries, but when he would have refuted their impudency and false reports, his mouth was stopped by the deputy. Therefore he was enforced to depart from the judgment-seat without defending himself. And Gallio refuseth to hear the cause, not for any evil will he bare to Paul, but because it was not agreeable to the office of the deputy to give judgment concerning the religion of every province. For though the Romans could not enforce the nations which were subject to them to observe their rites, yet lest they should seem to allow that which they did tolerate, they forbade their magistrates to meddle with this part of jurisdiction.

Here we see what the ignorance of true godliness doth in setting in order the state of every commonwealth and dominion. All men confess that this is the principal thing that true religion be in force and flourish. Now, when the true God is known, and the certain and sure rule of worshipping him is understood, there is nothing more equal than that which God commandeth in his law, to wit, that those who bear rule with power (having abolished contrary superstitions) defend the pure worship of the true God. But seeing that the Romans did observe their rites only through pride and stubbornness, and seeing they had no certainty where there was no truth, they thought that this was the best way they could take if they should grant liberty to those who dwelt in the provinces to live as they listed. But nothing is more absurd than to leave the worship of God to men’s choice. Wherefore, it was not without cause that God commanded by Moses that the king should cause a book of the law to be written out for himself, (Deuteronomy 17:18;) to wit, that being well instructed, and certain of his faith, he might with more courage take in hand to maintain that which he knew certainly was right.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(12) And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia.—“Deputy” stands, as before (see Note on Act_13:7), for “proconsul.” Here, also, St. Luke shows his characteristic accuracy in the use of official titles. Achaia, which included the whole of Greece south of the province of Macedonia, had been an imperial province under Tiberius (Tacitus, Ann. i. 76), and had been governed by a prætor, but had been recently, in the same year as the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, restored to the senate by Claudius, as no longer needing direct military control (Suetonius, Claud. c. 25). Gallio, or to give his full name, M. Annæus Novatus, who had taken the agnomen of Gallio on his adoption by the rhetorician of that name, was the brother of L. Annæus Seneca, the tutor of Nero. The philosopher dedicated to him two treatises on Anger and the Blessed Life; and the kindliness of his nature made him a general favourite. He was everybody’s “dulcis Gallio,” was praised by his brother for his disinterestedness and calmness of temper, as one “who was loved much, even by those who had but little capacity for loving” (Seneca, Ep. 104). On the whole, therefore, we may see in him a very favourable example of what philosophic culture was able to do for a Roman statesman. On the probable connection of the writer of the Acts with his family, see Introduction to the Gospel of St. Luke.

Made insurrection . . . against Paul. Better, perhaps, rose up against, or rushed upon, our word “insurrection” having acquired the special meaning of a revolt of subjects against rulers.

And brought him to the judgment seat.—The habit of the Roman governors of provinces was commonly to hold their court in the agora, or marketplace on certain fixed days (see Note on Act_19:38), so that any one might appeal to have his grievance heard. Gallio was now so sitting, and the Jews, having probably preconcerted their plans, took advantage of the opportunity.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12–17. Paul is accused before Gallio, who declines to consider the charge against him. In consequence the populace fall at once on Sosthenes, a chief man among the Jews, but Gallio lets their assault pass unnoticed

12. And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia] Better, But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia (so R. V.). The narrative is about to enter on something which was adverse to the spirit of quiet rest mentioned in the previous verse, therefore “but” is the fitting conjunction. To give the governor of the province his proper title is of much importance, and here forms a mark of the fidelity of the narrative. Achaia was a Roman province. Such provinces belonged either to the Senate or to the Emperor. When they were senatorial the governor was styled Proconsul. Now Achaia had been a senatorial province under Augustus, but under Tiberius was an imperial province for a time, but after a.d. 44 under Claudius (Suet. Claud. xxv.), which is the reign in which these events in St Paul’s life occurred, it was once more made senatorial and so had a Proconsul at this period for its governor. This Gallio was the brother of the famous philosopher Seneca, who was tutor and for a time minister of the Emperor Nero. Originally Gallio was called Marcus Annæus Novatus, and took the name of Gallio from the orator Lucius Junius Gallio, by whom he was adopted. The character of Gallio as described by his Roman contemporaries is that of a most bright, popular, and affectionate man. He is spoken of as “Sweet Gallio,” and Seneca declares that “those who love him to the utmost, don’t love him enough.”

the Jews made insurrection [Better (with R. V.), rose up] with one accord against Paul] They probably thought to avail themselves of the inexperience of a newly arrived proconsul, and by appearing in a body to obtain the expulsion of the Apostle from their city.

and brought him to the judgment seat] To Gallio they would seem a company of Jews accusing one of their own race of some erroneous teaching. If he had only lately come from Rome, he would be likely to have heard there of the troubles about “Christus” (see above on Act_18:2), and he would consider that he had come into the midst of a quarrel about the same matter.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia,.... This province, which was now become a Roman one, Pliny the younger (q) calls true and mere Greece; it went by the name of Aegialus (r), and now it is called Livadia: it has on the north the country of Thessaly, and on the west the river Acheloo, or Aracheo, on the east the Aegean sea, and on the south Peloponnesus, or the Morea. Gallio, who was now deputy of it, was brother to L. Annaeus Seneca, the famous philosopher, who was preceptor to Nero; his name at first was M. Annaeus Novatus, but being adopted by L. Junius Gallio, he took the name of the family. According to his brother's account of him (s), he was a very modest man, of a sweet disposition, and greatly beloved; and Statius (t) calls him Dulcem Gallionem, "the sweet Gallio", mild and gentle in his speech, as Quintilian says. Seneca (u) makes mention of him as being in Achaia; and whilst he was deputy there he had a fever, when as soon as it took him he went aboard a ship, crying, that it was not the disease of the body, but of the place.

The Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul; being provoked that so many of their people, as well as of the Gentiles, were converted by him to the Christian religion, and were baptized:

and brought him to the judgment seat; of Gallio, the deputy, to be tried and judged by him.

(q) L. 8. Ep. 24. (r) Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 4. c. 5. Pausanias, l. 7. p. 396. (s) Praefat. ad. l. 4. Nat. Quaest. (t) Sylvarum, l. 2. Sylv. 7. (u) Ep. 104.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat,

Ver. 12. And when Gallio was] This Gallio was brother to Seneca, who being a great courtier, obtained for him of Claudius the emperor to be made deputy of Achaia, as Tacitus testifieth.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And Gallio - After the Romans had conquered Greece they reduced it to two provinces, Macedonia and Achaia, which were each governed by a proconsul. Gallio was the brother of the celebrated philosopher Seneca, and was made proconsul of Achaia in 53 a.d. His proper name was Marcus Annaeus Novatus, but, having been adopted into the family of Gallio, a rhetorician, he took his name. He is mentioned by ancient writers as having been of a remarkably mild and amiable disposition. His brother Seneca (“Praef. Quest.” Nat. 4) describes him as being of the most lovely temper: “No mortal,” says he, “was ever so mild to anyone as he was to all: and in him there was such a natural power of goodness, that there was no semblance of art or dissimulation.”

Was the deputy - See this word explained in the notes on Act 13:7. It means here proconsul.

Of Achaia - This word, in its largest sense, comprehended the whole of Greece. Achaia proper, however, was a province of which Corinth was the capital. It embraced that part of Greece lying between Thessaly and the southern part of the Peloponnesus.

The Jews made insurrection - Excited a tumult, as they had in Philippi, Antioch, etc.

And brought him to the judgment seat - The tribunal of Gallio; probably intending to arraign him as a disturber of the peace.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

This Gallio was brother to the great Seneca, Nero’s preceptor, as that author himself assures us. (Præf. lib. v. Quæs. Natur.) He was called Annæus Novatus, but took the name of Gallio by adoption, and was made proconsul by his brother’s interest, whose honours and disgraces he equally participated. Being condemned to death by Nero, he laid violent hands upon himself. It is probable St. Paul became acquainted with Seneca. St. Jerome and St. Augustine say, many letters passed between them, which are not now extant. (Tirinus) See also Eusebius. An. Christi 66. [The year A.D. 66.]

Ver 17. Beat him. It is uncertain whether the Jews themselves beat Sosthenes, being vexed at him, for not managing well the cause; or whether he was struck by the attendants of the proconsul, to force him away, when he would not desist, nor retire. See the Analysis, dissert. xxxv. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

This Gallio was brother to that deservedly famous Seneca, (who was tutor to Nero), and hath great commendations given him, as being a man of excellent disposition, beloved by all men, an enemy to all vice, and especially a hater of flattery.

Deputy of Achaia; this man was proconsul, governing Achaia and all Greece absolutely, or with the power of a consul.

With one accord; wicked men in their evil deeds are unanimous, for Satan knows that his kingdom would not stand if it were once divided.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

But for and, A.V.; proconsul for the deputy, A.V.; with one accord rose up for made insurrection with one accord, A.V.; before for to, A.V. Gallio. Marcus Annaeus Novatus took the name of Lucius Junius Annaeus Gallio, on account of his adoption by L. Junius Gallio. He was the elder brother of Seneca, and a man of ability, and of a most amiable temper and disposition. His brother Seneca said that he had not a fault, and that everybody loved him. He was called "Dulcis Gallio" by Statius. It is unfortunately not known exactly in what year Gallio became either Consul or Proconsul of Achaia. Had it been known, it would have been invaluable for fixing the chronology of St. Paul"s life. Lewin puts it (his proconsulate) in the year A.D. 53, and so does Renan; Howson, between A.D. 52 and A.D. 54. The circumstantial evidence from secular writers corroboratingSt. Luke"s account is exceedingly curious. There is no account extant either of his consulate or of his proconsulate of Achaia. But Pithy, speaking of the medicinal effect of a sea-voyage on persons in consumption, gives as an example, "as I remember was the case with Annaeus Gallio after his consulate," and seems to imply that he went to Egypt for the sake of the long sea-voyage; which would suit very well his going there from his government in Achaia (Pliny, "Nat. Hist.," 31. cap. 6:33). And that his proconsulate was in Achaia is corroborated by a chance quotation in Seneca"s Epistle 104, of a saying of "my lord Gallio, when ha had a fever in Achaia and immediately went on board ship," where the phrase "domini met," applied to his own brother, seems also to indicate his high rank. Profane history also shuts up the probable date of Gallio"s proconsulate between the year A.D. 49 and the year A.D. 65 or 66, in which he died. There is a diversity of accounts as to his death. Ernesti, in his note on Tacitus, "Auual.," 15. 73., where Tacitus speaks of him as frightened at the death of his brother Seneca, and a suppliant for his own life, says, "quem Nero post interfecit," and refers to Dion Cassius, 58, 18, and Eusebius. But Dion is there speaking of Junius Gallio in the reign of Tiberius, not of our Gallio at all; though afterwards, speaking of the death of Seneca, he says, "and his brothers also were killed after him" (62, 25). As for Eusebius, the passage quoted is not found in the Greek or Armenian copies of the "Chronicon," but only in the Latin of Jerome. But, as Scaliger points out, there is a manifest blunder here, because the "Chronicon" places the death of Gallio two years before that of Seneca, whereas we know from Tacitus that Gallio was alive after his brother"s death. Moreover, the description "egregius declamator" clearly applies to Junius Gallio the rhetorician, and not to Gallio his adopted son. Though, therefore, Renan says, "Comme son frere il eut l"honneur sous Neron d"expier par, la mort sa distinction et son honnetete" ("St. Paul," p. 222), if we give duo weight to the silence of Tacitus, it is very doubtful whether he died a violent death at all. St. Luke, as usual, is most accurate in calling him proconsul. Achaia had been recently made a senatorial province by Claudius. For ajnqupatov, seesthsan, Act_13:7, Act_13:8, 12 19:38. The verb occurs only here in the New Testament. The term deputy was adopted in the A.V doubtless from that being the title of the Viceroy of Ireland, and other officers who exercise a deputed authority, just as the proconsul was in the place of the consul. Rose up against; katepe one of Luke"s peculiar words, found neither in the New Testament nor in the LXX, nor in classical writers (Steph., "Thesaur."). The judgment seat (see note to ver. 12).

Vers. 12-17. Fanaticism, pride, calmness, short-sightedness.

I JEWISH FANATICISM. (Vers. 12, 13.) The Jews could not or would not understand that Paul was not against the Law, but only against their interpretation of it; that Christianity was not so much the abrogation as the fulfillment of the Law, its reinstitution in another and a better form, the one and only thing which could perpetuate and immortalize it. They regarded the apostle as a renegade, as an iconoclast, as a traitor; their opposition became hatred; their hatred grew into murderous passion; their passion seized on the earliest opportunity to compass his imprisonment or death. We see in every act the attitude, we hear in every word the tone, of bitter and even furious fanaticism, as they hale Paul before the proconsul and exclaim, "This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the Law." This fierceness on their part was characteristic of them; it was of a piece with the rest of their national behavior before and after that time. It was not unlike the fanaticism of other nations, though it was more violent than that which is commonly displayed. All companies of men are liable to be carried away with passion which they are unable to control at the moment, but which they afterwards regret. Far better than this is

II CHRISTIAN CALMNESS. "Paul was... about to open his mouth" (ver. 14). We are not told by the historian what was his demeanor. There was no need to tell us. It may be assumed, without the smallest shade of uncertainty, that the "prisoner at the bar" was unmoved by the violence of the mob, and untroubled by the power of the magistrate. His quietness of soul did not proceed from his consciousness of strength, his assurance that he could make out his case against his accusers; it arose entirely from a sense that he stood at that bar as "the prisoner of the Lord," there for conscience" sake; and also from the sense that One stood by him who would not fail him, who would certainly redeem his word (ver. 10), beneath the shelter of whose care he was safe from Jewish spite and Roman power. "The Name of the Lord is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe". (Pro_18:10) What time we have reason to be afraid, we will trust in him. (Psa_56:3)

III ROMAN SUPERCILIOUSNESS. (Vers. 14-17.) We can feel an intense Roman pride breathing in every line of this passage. Gallic considered any contention respecting Jewish laws or customs a matter of utter unimportance. Anything outside the circle of Roman citizenship was beneath the regard of such men as he was. And what if certain Greeks vented their wrath on a despicable Jew! Was that to trouble him? We see a haughty disdain on that Roman brow; we hear a contemptuous scorn in those magisterial tones; we perceive a lofty derision in that swift dismissal, in that absolute unconcern. This was the pride that was born of power and of authority. But, however it may have resulted, here, in impartiality and justice, it is not a lovely nor a worthy feature of human character. We are all of us too near one another in proneness to error and liability to overthrow and disaster, to make it right or wise to take such a tone. Human pride is

(1) always based, in part, on error; it is

(2) always on the way to ruin.

IV HUMAN SHORT-SIGHTEDNESS. How little did the actors in this scene imagine that they were playing a part on which posterity would always look with interest! How little did Gallic suppose that he would be known to the end of time by reason of his association with that Jewish prisoner whom he contemptuously dismissed from his presence (see Farrar"s "Life of St. Paul," vol. 1. pp. 572, 573)! How imperfectly we measure the importance of the scenes through which we pass, of the actions we perform, of the men with whom we have to do! Let us act rightly, kindly, graciously at all times and toward all people. Who can tell whether we may not be rendering a service to some chosen ambassador of Christ, or lending a helpful hand in some incident on which the gravest issues may hang, or supplying the one link that is wanted in a chain which connects earth with heaven? They who are conscientious and kind in humblest matters will be surprised one day to find

(1) what excellent things they have done;

(2) what valuable commendation they have earned;

(3) what large rewards await them. C. (Mat_25:21, Mat_25:37-40)

Vers. 12-17. Contrasts in the attitude of men towards the gospel.

I LEGALISM. The whole idea of the opponents of Paul was his inconsistency with the Law.

1. It was not reverence for God"s Law, but for men"s traditions.

2. It was a form of self-worship. "He followeth not with us.

3. It was moral pedantry, a common sin; questions about words, names, and law, hiding realities.

II SECULARITY. Gallio an amiable and wise man, but doubtless influenced by the prevailing Roman spirit, which was indifference to all religion. "Reason" was his guide. But, while he refused to be a party to religious persecution, he did not put forth his power, as he might have done, to maintain liberty of speech.

III HEATHENISM IGNORANCE AND DISORDER. The gospel best prospers in the calm atmosphere of peace and reasonable thought. When we excite men"s passions against one another, we hinder the cause of truth. Sosthenes, doubtless, was ringleader of the Jews, but the Greeks did no service to the gospel by beating him. Gallio"s indifference to the gospel was probably increased by seeing it identified with disorder. The men of the world are not to be won by fanaticism. R.

Vers. 12-17. A novel instance of retribution.

The common sense of the unlearned has much more mercy than the refinement of the theologian, and the straightforwardness of a heathen will show to more advantage than the crookedness and narrowness of a man better known for professing than for practicing religion. We have here a noteworthy instance of some who, would-be punishers of another, succeed in letting themselves only in for punishment. And this just consummation in this case was due exclusively to the ready perception and blunt, uncompromising action of one who evidently had no inclination to lend himself as the tool of iniquitous bigotry and persecution. When it is said, indeed (ver. 17), that Gallio cared for none of these things," it is possible that, in strict justice, he ought to have cared for so much of them as concerned the lynch law, which, in the very presence of the judgment-seat," the multitude of the Greeks inflicted upon Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue. Obviously, however, the Greeks were not exceeding the unwritten law or custom of Corinth in their act, and the inaction of Gallio may be sufficiently accounted for by this consideration. Notice

I A LARGE NUMBER OF MEN MAKING COMMON CAUSE AGAINST ONE UNBEFRIENDED MAN, IN A RELIGIOUS MATTER AND BEFORE A FOREIGN COURT. If their perverted animosity of mind did not see the anomaly, the unperverted, unwarped mind of Gallio saw it promptly, and felt it decisively.

II A VERY HOLLOW AND INSINCERE STATEMENT THEREUPON OF THE CASE.

1. The facts of the accusers are not true scarcely to the letter, not at all to the spirit.

2. If. they had been so, it is not this which was likely to give the Jew cause of complaint. The Greek of Corinth might possibly have had some pretence for bringing the matter into prominence, but not the Jew. And Gallio saw through it at once.

III THE MAN OF TRUE RELIGION, COVERED BY THE ROMAN JUDGES, EXEMPTED FROM THE NECESSITY OF DEFENDING HIMSELF, THOUGH QUITE PREPARED TO DO SO, AND REMITTED TO HIS WORK, FREER AND SAFER TO DO IT THAN EVER.

IV THE ACCUSERS CONTEMPTUOUSLY DISMISSED, AND THE UNJUSTIFIABLENESS OF THEIR CONTENTION, BEING BROUGHT TO THAT COURT, PROVED OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTH.

V THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNJUST ACCUSERS SUMMARILY PUNISHED HIMSELF, HIS INIQUITY RETURNING UPON HIS OWN PATE, AND THAT BY THE DEED, NOT OF HIM WHOM HE HAD DONE HIS BEST TO INJURE, BUT BY THE SPONTANEOUS CONCERT OF OTHERS. And every stage of these events spoke to the retributive observation of One who "is angry with the wicked every day," let them be who they may, and their pretences what they may. And every step also spoke the observing and sympathizing care of Christ for one to whom he had just made the promise, "No man shall set on thee to hurt thee; I am with thee." How happy are all they who serve him with all their might, in that they may trust him with all their heart! B.

Vers. 12-17. Gallio"s indifference.

It is a singular thing that altogether unworthy ideas should have been associated in Christian minds with this man Gallio. He is known to have been the brother of Seneca, and a man of singular amiability of character. "Seneca dedicated to him two treatises on Anger and the Blessed Life; and the kindliness of his nature made him a general favorite. He was everybody"s "Dulcis Gallio," was praised by his brother for his disinterestedness and calmness of temper, as one who was loved much even by those who had but little capacity for loving." "F.W. Robertson remarks on the expression, "Gallio cared for none of those things;" "that is, he took no notice of them, he would not interfere. He was, perhaps, even glad that a kind of wild, irregular justice was administered to one Sosthenes, who had been foremost in bringing an unjust charge. So that instead of Gallio being, as commentators make him, a sort of type of religious lukewarmness, he is really a specimen of an upright Roman magistrate." But a careful judgment of the incidents which bring Gallio before us leaves the impression that the general idea of his character is in great measure the correct one; his easy-going gentleness was only too likely to lead him to connive at wrong-doings, and fail adequately to punish wrong-doers. From the narrative we may learn such things as these

I SOME THINGS ARE BEST TREATED WITH CONTEMPT. In life we often meet with difficulties which are made by treating trifling matters seriously.

1. Certain forms of opposition to Christian truth are best "left alone." They grow into importance by being treated as if they were serious.

2. Officious and intermeddling persons are best treated with a quiet scorn; by making much of them utterly incompetent persona are lifted into positions for which they are wholly unfitted. In the practical relations of society and of the Church there is a mission for burnout, satire, and even scorn; and in the use of such weapons we have the example of St. Paul. But it is manifest that such weapons are dangerous, and may only be used with due caution and reserve.

II RELIGIOUS QUARRELS MAY OFTEN WISELY BE TREATED WITH CONTEMPT. The disputes and contentions which arise in religious communities seldom bear relation to principle; they usually come from petty misunderstandings, or aroused personal feeling. Mischief comes by fostering them, giving them importance, and letting them develop their evil influence. There is often needed, in religious associations, the strong firm ruler who, like Gallio, will refuse to hear miserable contentions about words and names, or to heed the reports of slanderers and backbiters. It is seldom found possible to heal religious quarrels, and it is practically wiser to treat them as we treat spreading diseases stamp them out, by the refusal to recognize them. Let them die out; and this they will surely do if we take care not to fan the flame.

III THE CLAIMS OF RELIGIOUS TRUTH AND DUTY MAY NEVER BE SET ASIDE WITH CONTEMPT. Whoever may present them, udder whatever circumstances they may be presented, they demand our attention, our calm, careful consideration. Nothing of truth may we leave alone, whether it be old truth set before us with a new vividness and force, or new truth which is apparently opposed to all our prejudices. All truth comes to us with a Thus saith the Lord;" and, as God"s voice to us, we dare not be indifferent, much less may we be contemptuous. Show what truths and duties may come before us; apply especially to the gospel offer; press the demand for immediate attention on this ground, It is not a vain thing for you; it is your life. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia - Of which Corinth was the chief city. This Gallio, the brother of the famous Seneca, is much commended both by him and by other writers, for the sweetness and generosity of his temper, and easiness of his behaviour. Yet one thing he lacked! But he knew it not and had no concern about it.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The insurrection at the time of Gallio:

v. 12. And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment-seat,

v. 13. saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.

v. 14. And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, if it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you;

v. 15. but if it be a question of words and names and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.

v. 16. And he drave them from the judgment-seat.

v. 17. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment-seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.

Gallio became proconsul of Achaia and took charge of the affairs of the province in the summer of 51 A. D. , almost a year after Paul had come to Corinth. "Another proof of St. Luke’s accuracy. Achaia from B. C. 27 (when it had been separated from Macedonia, to which it had been united since B. C. 146, and made into a separate province) had been governed by a proconsul. In A. D. 15 Tiberius had reunited it with Macedonia and Mysia, and it was therefore under an imperial Zegatus as an imperial province. But a further change occurred when Claudius, A. D. 44, made it again a senatorial province under a proconsul. " Evidently the Jews thought this a propitious time to inaugurate a tumult, for they arose against Paul with one accord, as one man, and led him to the judgment-seat of the proconsul. They may have thought that the new proconsul would want to make a favorable impression and gain the good will of all his subjects at once, and therefore would grant their request. Their charge against Paul was that he, against the law, was persuading the people to worship God. The wording of the accusation showed great skill, for in a certain sense the word "law" might include both the Roman law and the Jewish law, the first being fixed by the government, the second being permitted by a special decree. In stating that Paul’s teaching was illegal, they meant to convey the impression that he was spreading a prohibited religion, while in their own hearts they had reference only to their ceremonial law and to the traditions which they held sacred. So the Jews here made use of boldness mingled with cleverness. Paul was just about to open his lips to make a suitable reply to this sophistical charge when Gallio gave the Jews an answer which showed that he drew a hard and fast line between a charge of unlawful action against the state and against Jewish law and custom. He explained that if it were a case of an unlawful action, of a breach of state law, or if it were an actual crime, a moral wrong, with which they were charging Paul, he would sustain them, he would look into the case, according to right and justice. But so far as any discussion regarding a word and names of their law was concerned, they would have to see to that themselves; he did not propose to act as judge in such matters. Gallio was not altogether clear in his mind what the whole controversy was about; he may have heard some references to the Word of God, to the name of Jesus, to the customs and usages of the Jews. And it was not necessary for him, in his capacity as secular judge, to be familiar with these matters. But he certainly proved that the high praise bestowed upon him by the historians, in calling him a man of admirable integrity, amiable and popular, was not misplaced. In this he might well serve as an example to state officers everywhere, in showing them that the business of the state deals with transgressions of the second table of the Law only, and should not interfere with the exercise of religion. The prompt and energetic action of the proconsul, not only in rendering a clear opinion without the least delay, but also in dismissing the importunate Jews with some sharpness, in clearing the court, made a very favorable impression upon the people that were gathered in the forum, and turned the tide of popular prejudice in favor of Paul. The Greeks that were present immediately laid hold of Sosthenes, the successor of Crispus as the ruler of the synagogue, and gave him a sound thrashing in full view of the judgment-seat, and Gallio took no official notice of the beating, assuming, no doubt, that there was some bitterness against the Jews which might find its vent in this comparatively harmless way. And thus, in accordance with the Lord’s promise that no harm should befall the apostle, the purpose of Gallio to confine himself strictly to his business of proconsul was a means of saving Paul from persecution and probably even death.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. How St. Paul, taking heart from the foregoing promise made by God unto him, goes on courageously in the work of his ministry at Corinth; but the unbelieving Jews were so enraged against him, that they combined together as one man, and with one accord made insurrection against Paul.

Where note, What great unity and unanimity there is among wicked men, the devil’s friends; he well knows that his kingdom could not long stand if it were divided. The unity of all society is their strength.

Observe, 2. They accuse the apostle before Gallip the deputy, for persuading men to worship God contrary to the law of Moses.

Who would not think but these men were truly pious, virtuous, and good, who were so zealous for the worship of God according to the law? and yet they were wicked men, and fiery persecutors. There is a noisy religion in the world? some men think, by crying the Church! the Church! and by pleading loud for the worship of God, as established by law, to atone for all their immoralities.

Praying is good, hearing and receiving the sacrament are good, if they be joined with holy walking; but if otherwise, the howling of wolves is as acceptable to Almighty God, as the prayers of those men who call Christ Master, and the church mother, but do not the things which they have commanded; yea, the very dogs which follow them to the public assemblies, shall as soon find acceptance as themselves, if they do not obey him whom they pretend to adore. It is no matter what church a wicked man is of, for it is certain he can be saved in none.

Observe, 3. What low and mean thoughts Gallio had, and all persons prejudiced against religion and the power of godliness have, of sincere Christianity: If it be a question of words and names, says Gallio. As if he had said, "Do not trouble me about the niceties of your religion, decide such questions among yourselves; for I will be no judge in such matters." The great men of the world little care to trouble their heads about the matters of religion; they look upon it only as a matter of notion and speculation; whereas it is not a speculative science, but a practical art of holy living: and accordingly, like Gallio, they care for none of these things.

Observe lastly, That although this Gallio had no kindness for Christianity, yet God made use of him as an instrument, at this time, to preserve and screen St. Paul from the rage of his enemies, insomuch, that he drove his accusers from the judgment-seat.

Thus God performed his promise to Paul, suffering no man to hurt him; but causing Gallio the governor to defend him, who his enemies were in hopes would have destroyed him.

Lord, how happy and wise is it for thy servants to commit the care of themselves to thee in well-doing! If we, with a purity of intention, concern ourselves for thy glory, thou wilt certainly take care of our safety; or if any danger should come, danger itself shall do us no harm.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

PAUL’S TRIAL BEFORE GALLIO

12-17. This case is really notable. When Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue is converted, Sosthenes succeeds him and is enthusiastic to exterminate the Pauline heresy out of the church. Consequently, he resolves to prosecute Paul before the civil tribunal and drive him out of the country. He has him arrested and arraigned at the tribunal of Gallio, the Roman proconsul, under charge of teaching people to worship God contrary to the authority of the fallen Jewish church. Of course, Gallio, a heathen Roman, cares nothing about the Jewish religion, looking upon it as mere superstition, and allowing them to battle it among themselves. Therefore he simply dismissed the case out of court, like modern mayors frequently do the Salvation Army. The animosity of the Gentile multitude is thus aroused against the Jews, who have thus failed in their efforts to get Paul flogged, so they seize Sosthenes, his disappointed prosecutor, and give him a thrashing. It seems to have done him good, as we find him (1

Corinthians 1:1) associated with Paul in the evangelistic work In Asia, and even honored along with the authorship of the Epistle. It actually looks as if, after the manner of Peter Cartwright, they beat religion into him.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12, 13. The next paragraph introduces an incident which occurred within this period of eighteen months, and which is worthy of special notice, because of several peculiarities not common to the scenes of apostolic suffering. (12) " While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews, with one accord, rose up against Paul and led him to the judgment-seat, (13) saying, This man is persuading men to worship God contrary to the law. " Here we have the same charge, in form, which was preferred against Paul at Philippi and Thessalonica, causing all the trouble which befell him in those cities. But the charge, in those instances, was preferred by Greeks, with reference to the Roman law; while, in the present, the Jews had the boldness to prefer it in their own name, with reference to their own law. This fact indicates a degree of confidence in their own influence which we have not seen exhibited by the Jews in any other Gentile city.

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

12–17. When Gallio was the deputy of Achaia. Proconsul, in the Revision, as it should be. The province of Achaia had been transferred by Claudius to the government of the senate, and the governors of senatorial provinces were proconsuls, which is the meaning of the term rendered deputy. Gallio was the brother of Seneca, the philosopher and tutor of Nero. He is often mentioned in the literature of that day as a cultivated, polished man of the world. Seneca speaks of his brother's residence in Achaia. The Jews made insurrection. Rose up against Paul, no doubt enraged at the success of his work. His sleepless enemies always found some occasion to stir up strife. Brought him to the judgment seat. The court of Gallio.

This man persuadeth … contrary to the law. Their charge was that Paul sought to persuade men to worship contrary to the Roman law; that is, he preached a new and unlawful religion. Besides the state religion, Rome recognized various others, among them Judaism. These Jews attempted to show that Paul's gospel was not Judaism.

Gallio said unto the Jews. Without suffering Paul to reply, he at once rebuked the Jews, who were evidently not in his favor. His rebuke shows that he ignorantly regarded Christianity as a kind of Judaism, and thought that the enmity of the Jews was due to the rivalry of sects. To him it was a question of “words and names, and of the Jewish law.”

He drave them. Ordered his lictors to clear the court of the Jews.

The Greeks took Sosthenes. He had evidently succeeded Crispus as chief ruler of the synagogue, and was probably foremost among the accusers. The populace laid violent hands on him. Gallio cared for none of those things. The great Romans were usually utterly indifferent to religion at this period. Nor did Gallio care to see some violence inflicted on the leading Jews.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

The unbelieving Jews bring Paul to the judgment seat before Gallio.

General Information:

Achaia was the Roman province in which Corinth was located. It was the largest city in southern Greece and the capital of the province. (See: How to Translate Names)

Gallio

This is the name of a man. (See: How to Translate Names)

the Jews

This stands for the Jewish leaders that did not believe in Jesus. (See: Synecdoche)

rose up together

"came together" or "joined together"

brought him before the judgment seat

The Jews took Paul by force to bring Paul before the court. Here "judgment seat" refers to the place where Gallio sat when he made legal decisions in court. AT: "took him so that the governor could judge him at the judgment seat" (See: Metonymy)

translationWords

govern

Jew

Paul

judge

worship

God

law, laws

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

12–17. PAUL IS ACCUSED BEFORE GALLIO, WHO DECLINES TO CONSIDER THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM. IN CONSEQUENCE, THE POPULACE FALL AT ONCE ON SOSTHÉNES, A CHIEF MAN AMONG THE JEWS, BUT GALLIO LETS THEIR ASSAULT PASS UNNOTICED.

12. ἀνθυπάτου ὄντος with אABD.

12. Γαλλίωνος δὲ ἀνθυπάτου ὄντος τῆς Ἀχαίας, but when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia. We come now to an episode in marked contrast to the repose and quiet spoken of just before. St Luke here gives Gallio his correct title, which is a great mark of the fidelity of his narrative. Achaia was a Roman province. Such provinces belonged either to the Senate or to the Emperor. When they were senatorial the governor was styled Proconsul. Now Achaia had been a senatorial province under Augustus, but under Tiberius became an imperial province for a time. Subsequently after A.D. 44 under Claudius (Suet. Claud, xxv.), which is the reign in which these events in St Paul’s life occurred, it was once more made senatorial and so had a proconsul at this period for its governor. This Gallio was the brother of the famous philosopher Seneca, who was tutor, and for a time minister, of the Emperor Nero. Originally Gallio was called Marcus Annæus Novatus, and took the name of Gallio from the orator Lucius Junius Gallio, by whom he was adopted. The character of Gallio as described by his Roman contemporaries is that of a most bright, popular and affectionate man. He is spoken of as ‘sweet Gallio,’ and Seneca declares that ‘those who love him to the utmost, don’t love him enough.’

κατεπέστησαν ὁμοθυμαδόν, they rose up with one accord. The Jews probably hoped to avail themselves of the inexperience of a newly arrived proconsul. For this reason they came in a body and sought to have Paul expelled from the city.

καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα, and brought him to the judgement seat. In Gallio’s eyes they would seem to be a company of Jews accusing one of their own race of some erroneous teaching. If he had only lately come from Rome, he would be likely to have heard there of the troubles about ‘Christus’ (see above on Act 18:2), and he would consider that he had come into the midst of a quarrel about the same matter.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12. Γαλλίωνος] His original name was Marcus Annæus Novatus: but, having been adopted into the family of the rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio, he took the name of Junius Annæus Gallio. He was brother of Lucius Annæus Seneca, the philosopher, whose character of him is in exact accordance with that which we may infer from this narrative: ‘Nemo mortalium mihi tam dulcis est, quam hic omnibus:’ ‘Gallionem fratrem meum, quem nemo non parum amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest.’ He is called ‘dulcis Gallio’ by Statius, Silv. ii. 7. 32. He appears to have given up the province of Achaia from ill health: ‘Illud mihi in ore erat domini mei Gallionis qui cum in Achaia febrem habere cœpisset, protinus navem ascendit, clamitans non corporis esse sed loci morbum.’ Senec. Ep. 104. He was spared after the execution of his brother (Tacit. Ann. xv. 73): but Dio Cassius, lxii. 25, adds, οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ὕστερον ἐπαπώλοντο, and Euseb. Chron. ad ann. 818 (a.d. 66), says that he put an end to himself after his brother’s death.

ἀνθυπάτου] See note on ch. 13:7. Achaia was originally a senatorial province (Dio Cass. liii. 12), but was temporarily made an imperial one by Tiberius. Tacit. Ann. i. 76, ‘Achaiam ac Macedoniam, onera deprecantes, levari in præsens proconsulari imperio, tradique Cæsari placuit.’ Claudius (Suet. Claud. 25) ‘Provincias Achaiam et Macedoniam quas Tiberius ad curam suam transtulerat, senatui reddidit.’

τ. Ἀχαΐας] The Roman province of Achaia contained Hellas and the Peloponnesus, and, with Macedonia, embraced all their Grecian dominions. It was so called, according to Pausanias (vii. 16. 7), because the Romans ἐχειρώσαντο Ἕλληνας διʼ Ἀχαιῶν τότε τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ προεστηκότων (the Achaian league).

“The βῆμα is mentioned three times in the course of this narrative (see vv. 16, 17). It was of two kinds: (1) fixed in some public and open place: (2) moveable, and taken by the Roman magistrates to be placed wherever they might sit in a judicial character. Probably here and in the case of Pilate (Joh 19:13), the former kind of seat is intended. See Smith’s Dict. of Antiquities, under ‘Sella.’ See also some remarks on the tribunal—‘the indispensable symbol of the Roman judgment-seat,’ in the Edinburgh Review for Jan. 1847, p. 151.” C. and H. vol. i. 494.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gallio. Brother of the philosopher Seneca (Nero's tutor), and uncle of the poet Lucan, the author of the "Pharsalia." Seneca speaks of him as amiable and greatly beloved.

Deputy. See on ch. Act 13:7. The verb, to be deputy, occurs only here.

Judgment - seat. See on ch. Act 7:5.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.