And after these things, having left Athens, he came to Corinth;
Paul leaves the lecture halls of Athens, where his preaching drew sneers, and heads for Corinth, a rich port with a foul moral name. Why did he move on, and why did the best harvest come in the least likely place?
One writer sees Paul's exit as part of a pattern that runs through Scripture.
It does seem in Scripture that when unbelief rises to the height of mockery, the testimony stops — see Jeremiah 15:17; Acts 13:41; and Acts 17:32 with Acts 18:1.
Athens gave little fruit. One writer ties that small result to the kind of people God chooses.
There was little fruit in this gifted but frivolous city. For God has chosen the foolish, the weak, and the despised things of the world, to bring to nothing the things that are. The wisdom of this world is foolishness before God, and the Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. The apostle continues his journey to the other important Greek centre, Corinth. It was a commercial city in a superb setting, but deeply corrupt. Even at this time wealth was everywhere, and the city had become a byword for luxury and loose living.
The sixty-mile walk took Paul into a different world. The city's name had even become a verb for moral ruin.
Corinth lay about sixty miles away. The change was great. Athens was a beautiful city, with striking buildings, philosophies and learning. Corinth was the big bustling commercial capital of those parts. The city had a name for open vice. People said that many a country youth drawn into that city was Corinthianised.
The two cities were famous for opposite things, and Paul traded one reputation for the other.
He left what had been the great seat of learning to work in the centre of vice. Athens was famous for its philosophers. Corinth had a bad name for immorality, tied above all to its temple of Venus.
By any human reckoning, Corinth was the wrong place to build. That is the point.
The ways of grace are wholly above man's thoughts. No one could have expected that God would raise a monument to His Son, not in intellectual Athens, but in demoralised Corinth. Was there any prior link, or any natural fit at all, between the Holy One of God and this notorious seat of impurity? The grace of God gives no account of its dealings, but works to the glory of Christ — and most of all where man is most needy. The wisdom of this age had proved its folly in Athens. The compassion of God yearned over Corinth, in the face of all its loose living and corruption.
What looked like a step down was the place of the greatest yield.
In the deeply self-indulgent state of Corinth the gospel, strange to say, was to take a great and effective hold on part of the people. Not so at Athens. There the souls were few, and the work weak by comparison. But in Corinth, known as the most corrupt of Greek cities, how unexpected yet how good the ways of the Lord!
Paul knew the city he had walked into, and he settled his method before he opened his mouth.
The apostle came into that city led by the Holy Spirit, and he knew the character of the people. From the very start, guided by God, he had decided the spirit in which he would work there. He took care to avoid anything that would have pleased the natural man and so drawn people to hear him.
His support came from Philippi, not from Corinth.
In the middle of this luxury the ambassador of God appears as a poor working man of the world. From his letters we know that he refused to take anything from the wealthy Corinthians. Yet he received with joy the gift sent as the fruit of their love by the simple believers of Philippi.
- Move on. When unbelief hardens into mockery, as at Athens, the testimony stops. Paul left.
- Move down. He exchanged the seat of learning for the centre of vice, a city whose name had become a byword for corruption.
- Grace chooses. Nothing in Corinth fitted the Holy One of God. Grace gives no account of itself, and works most where need is greatest.
- Grace yields. The most corrupt city gave the gospel its strong hold. Cultured Athens gave a weak work.
- Grace shapes the worker. Paul settled his method in advance. He avoided whatever would flatter the natural man, took no money from the wealthy, and lived among them as a poor working man.
and finding a certain Jew by name Aquila, of Pontus by race, just come from Italy, and Priscilla his wife, (because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome,) came to them,
Paul arrives in Corinth alone and meets a Jewish couple just driven out of Rome by an imperial order. Luke records the plain facts, and behind them sits a question: what was God doing through a hostile decree?
Paul had just left Athens, the city of philosophers, for a city known for its immorality. One writer sees in this the way God chooses His ground:
The ways of grace are far above human thinking. No one could have guessed that God would raise a monument to His Son, not in intellectual Athens, but in corrupt Corinth. Was there any earlier link, or any natural fitness at all, between the Holy One of God and this famous seat of impurity? The grace of God gives no account of what it does. It works for the glory of Christ, and most of all where man is neediest.
The couple were in Corinth for political reasons. An emperor had driven the Jews out of Rome, and one Roman writer records the same expulsion:
Suetonius, who wrote the lives of the Caesars, states that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because of a Jewish disturbance, "at the instigation of Chrestus". The Latin words quoted are probably a mistake on his part. They may point to violence by unbelieving Jews against those who believed. Or they may be a confusion, caused by Roman suspicion, with the preaching of the Messiah elsewhere.
Kelly also answers those who say Luke got the history wrong:
... Some have supposed that Dio Cassius contradicts Luke, and Suetonius as well, when he says the emperor did not expel the Jews but ordered them not to gather in Rome. If we distinguish the times, all is clear and true.
The edict was an act of hostility, but it delivered two lifelong friends and helpers to Paul's door. One writer follows what came of it:
The harsh decree of Claudius worked to throw them across Paul's path, and this led to their conversion and then their later service, which earned the high praise of Romans 16:3-4. God overruled the decree of expulsion for good, making the wrath of man to praise Him.
It met a personal need too. Paul had come to Corinth without his companions:
Soon after his arrival he unexpectedly found two friends and fellow workers in Aquila and his wife Priscilla. The Lord used the banishment of Aquila and Priscilla to provide lodging for His lonely servant. They were of his own country — of his own trade — of his own heart and spirit.
Luke introduces Aquila as a Jew, not as a disciple. Older translations read "a certain Jew." Commentators differ on what the wording implies:
Many make much of Aquila being called "a certain Jew" rather than a disciple. But the wording is easy to explain. It marks where he was born, and it gives the reason he left Rome for Corinth. Remember too that in those early days Romans and foreigners did not tell Christian Jews apart from other Jews by natural descent. So Paul more than once calls himself a Jew later in this book. The apostle never speaks of them as his children in the faith, however warmly he may greet them.
Another writer leaves the question open but fixes the outcome:
There is no indication of whether they were Christians at that time... At least they were certainly Christians before Paul left Corinth.
Paul and Aquila shared a trade. Years later Paul greets the couple in his letter to Rome:
Here the apostle marks them out as his fellow workers in Christ Jesus. He does this with all the more care, because Aquila and he had worked at the same trade of tent-making. But the everyday trade drops out of sight, however right it is to note it in its own place... The trade of tent-maker, if carried on at Rome, would give him a large room where quite a few could gather.
Their story does not end in Corinth. It runs to the last letter Paul wrote:
A converted Jew of Pontus, husband of Priscilla, whom Paul first met at Corinth... They travelled with Paul to Ephesus, where they were able to help Apollos spiritually... they were at Rome when Paul wrote his letter to the saints there. In it he said they had laid down their necks for his life, and that all the churches, along with him, gave thanks to them. In Paul's last letter he still sends his greeting to them.
- Decree — Claudius banished the Jews from Rome. A Roman writer records the same expulsion, perhaps linked to disputes over the Messiah.
- Displacement — the edict uprooted Aquila and Priscilla from Italy. It set them down in the very city where Paul, travelling alone, was about to arrive.
- Dwelling — a shared trade gave Paul lodging and work, and later gave believers a large room to gather in.
- Devotion — commentators differ on whether the couple were already converted. They certainly were before Paul left Corinth. Later they helped Apollos and risked their lives for Paul.
- Design — grace chose corrupt Corinth over clever Athens. It used a hostile emperor's order to build a friendship that served churches across the Gentile world.
and because they were of the same trade abode with them, and wrought. For they were tent-makers by trade.
Paul reached Corinth alone, and the first thing recorded of him there is not a sermon but a workbench. Why does the leading missionary of the early church stitch tent cloth, and who should pay for the work of God?
Aquila and Priscilla were in Corinth only because Rome had expelled them. That expulsion put a roof over Paul's head.
Soon after he arrived, he unexpectedly found two friends and fellow workers in Aquila and his wife Priscilla. At this time there must have been more Jews in Corinth than usual, "because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome." So the Lord used the banishment of Aquila and Priscilla to provide a lodging for His lonely servant. They were of his own country — of his own trade — of his own heart and spirit.
Paul's skill with cloth was no accident. It came from a rule Jewish fathers followed, and it gave him something he wanted at Corinth.
It was a custom among the Jews that all boys should learn a trade. "What is commanded of a father towards his son?" asks a Talmudic writer. "To circumcise him, to teach him the law, to teach him a trade." Another Rabbi wrote, "He that does not teach his son a trade does the same as if he taught him to be a thief." In line with these sayings, Paul's father had him trained in tent-making. When he came to Corinth, his first concern seems to have been to find a way to carry on his trade. He wanted to stay independent of any man. He would not use his right to "get his living by the gospel," so that he might "present the gospel free of charge."
The setting matters. Corinth was a city of wealth, and there the apostle works with his hands.
It pleased God to arrange things this way. In the wealthiest and most luxurious city of Greece, the great apostle worked at an honest job to meet his own needs. What a death-blow to clericalism on the one hand, and to worldliness on the other! Yet look at Paul's own situation, and at Corinth. This was the very course worthy of the gospel of the grace that sent it out.
Paul made one rule for other workers and kept another for himself.
To everyone who offered him a gift, he could say, I do not want your support. Before he was a prisoner, he supported himself by making tents. I guarantee they were the best tents on the market (Acts 18:3). He would not give any man a chance of saying, Paul was paid for it; or, I have made Paul rich. He supported himself. And I think a man who earns his bread by an honest trade, and then gives himself to the Lord's work, is the happiest and freest of men. He depends on no one but his Master. Paul would not take a penny from the Corinthians, though he laid down the rule that the servant should be supported. He laid the rule down for others and gave it up for himself.
The example cuts one way only. It says what the trade was for, and what it can never excuse.
In Paul's case he was not laying the Lord's work aside to take up a respectable, well-paid profession. He used a trade he already knew, to provide honestly for himself and to help others in need. It is a good word from a man who works like this to his fellow workers, small or great. But it is out of place when God's people use it to hold back the faith of a spiritual worker, or to forget their own duty to those who are given up to the Lord's work.
Their shared trade led to more than shared work.
This godly couple now got to know Paul, and began a friendship that lasted for life. Their being of the same trade — tent-makers — may have first drawn them together. These two were zealous workers in the Lord's work. Apollos owed much to them. In the towns where they lived, Christians had them to thank for a place to meet and proclaim the Lord's death.
- Providence. A hostile order drove a Jewish couple from Rome to Corinth. The Lord used it to give His lonely servant a lodging, a trade partner, and a friend for life.
- Preparation. Jewish custom put a trade in every boy's hands, so Paul had the skill years before he needed it.
- Purpose. He worked so he could offer the gospel free of charge, dependent on no man's purse.
- Position. Honest work in the richest city of Greece struck at clericalism and at worldliness at once.
- Proportion. Paul taught that God's people should support His workers, then refused that support himself. It is an example for workers, never an excuse to neglect them.
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks.
Paul came alone to Corinth, a city famous for its trade and its vice. He settled into a rhythm: work during the week, the synagogue on the Sabbath. Three questions follow. Why this city? What does "reasoned" mean? And why were Greeks sitting in a Jewish synagogue at all?
Athens was the city of philosophers. Corinth had the opposite reputation.
The ways of grace are wholly above man's thoughts. No one could have predicted that God would raise a trophy to His Son in morally ruined Corinth rather than in intellectual Athens. Was there any earlier link between the Holy One of God and this city known everywhere for its immorality? Was there any natural fit at all? The grace of God explains nothing of what it does, but works to the glory of Christ; and most of all where man is most needy.
Paul used the same order city after city. It matched what he wrote about the gospel itself.
Even Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, could write of the gospel he preached: "it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16). Again and again we find Paul going first to the synagogue, following out the divine thought, "to the Jew first."
The word behind "reasoned" covers a range. The setting decides which sense fits here.
The same word means either "discoursing" in general, or in particular "reasoning", or even "disputing", as in Mark 9:34; Acts 17:2; Acts 24:12; Jude 9. Here as in Acts 20:7-9; Heb. 12:5, the more general force seems preferable... The synagogue was where he spoke. So we can be sure that the testimony of the Old Testament was the broad groundwork on which Paul appealed to his hearers. They were not only Jews. The text tells us plainly that Greeks, not Greek-speaking Jews, were the people he regularly persuaded.
Corinth's religion degraded its own worshippers. That helps explain why non-Jews had drifted toward the synagogue.
Nowhere was this more deeply or openly true than in Corinth, where the worship of Aphrodite with her infamous temple slaves prevailed... They abandoned all fear or thought of the true God. They fell below even the natural decency of man, and dishonoured themselves in dishonouring God. The synagogue, cold as it was, attracted consciences that recoiled from evil. Philosophy indulged that evil, or at best was far too weak to replace or restrain it. There Greeks listened along with Jews to the holy and persuasive discourses of the apostle.
Some read the word as a slow wearing down. Kelly points to how Paul himself uses it elsewhere.
People have made too much of the word "persuade" in verse 4, as if it meant to "induce little by little". On the contrary, it is the word the apostle himself uses for preaching the gospel to win souls. He preaches it in view of the awful reality of Christ's judgment seat for the hard or heedless (2 Cor. 5:10-11). Paul's word was certainly not in persuasive words of wisdom, as he told the Corinthians in his First Epistle (1 Cor. 2:3-5). It was in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. That was true at the very time he was with them, when he came in weakness and in fear and in much trembling.
The verse describes only one day of Paul's week. The other six were not idle.
During the weekdays, or at least five of them, Paul laboured with his own hands. But "he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks." As was his custom he went to the Jew first (see chapters 13, 14 etc.). While he was so engaged, Silas and Timothy joined him from Macedonia, to his joy and comfort.
The trade suited the town. Corinth traded in everything, and Paul refused to let his message look like one more item on the market.
He would not have them think of the gospel as among the wares in which they traded. Money could not buy the priceless gift of God. They must never be able to think, even for a moment, that he was after anything of theirs. No, he sought them only, and he sought them in the love of Christ. Christ was so rich, yet He became poor for men, so that they might become rich through His poverty.
- Grace chooses. God raised a monument to His Son in corrupt Corinth, not in clever Athens. Grace works most where need is greatest.
- Grace keeps order. Paul went to the synagogue first, city after city: "to the Jew first and also to the Greek."
- Grace argues. "Reasoned" means steady teaching from the Old Testament, the groundwork Paul used with Jews and Greeks alike.
- Grace reaches further. Greeks sick of Corinth's temple religion had drifted into the synagogue. Paul aimed his persuading at them too.
- Grace costs the messenger. Five days at his trade, every Sabbath preaching. No one in that trading city could mistake the gospel for goods for sale.
And when both Silas and Timotheus came down from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in respect of the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.
Paul had been reasoning in the synagogue at Corinth week by week while working at his trade, alone. Then Silas and Timothy reach him from Macedonia, and two questions follow: what was Paul "occupied with," and what did his friends change?
One writer draws a plain lesson here about what other believers do for a servant under strain:
From Athens, Paul had sent Timothy, who had joined him there. Now Silas and Timothy return and are found with Paul. Pressed in spirit by their presence, he bears still stronger testimony that Jesus was the Christ. He had worked faithfully while they were away. But the presence of other Christians gives his spirit courage and strength according to God.
Another writer fills in where they came from, and how news of his young converts cheered him.
Notice that the two fellow workers came down from "Macedonia", the Roman province of northern Greece, as distinct from Achaia, whose chief city was Corinth. Both Silas and Timothy now joined the apostle at Corinth, though not necessarily at the same moment, and not necessarily from the same place. The apostle had warned these young converts in advance of the suffering that came on them. But this only increased his longing for them, and now he could rejoice that the tempter had failed and that they stood firm.
Older English Bibles say Paul was "pressed in the spirit." Newer ones, like the ESV, say he was "occupied with the word." Commentators differ. Some keep the older wording and read it as a burden on Paul's own heart:
Silas and Timothy found Paul "pressed in the Spirit" (or, by another reading, "pressed in respect of the word") in his testimony to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. We take this to mean that his message to them lay as a heavy burden on his soul. He felt his responsibility for it deeply.
Others say the manuscript evidence settles it for "word":
The traditional reading "spirit" has no support from the best manuscripts, which give "word." The word "spirit" crept in from Acts 17:16; 18:25; 19:21 and other places. So a translation like "the mind of Paul was violently disturbed" must be rejected on every ground.
Their coming did not end his tent-making either, and the tense of the verb tells against that idea:
There is no ground for the notion that their arrival with supplies let Paul give up tent-making and preach only. The verb does not mean anything of the sort. It means rather that his absorption with the word, which already marked him, went on, for the tense shows a continuing state, not a fresh act beginning at their coming.
Paul pressed one point, not the whole range of his teaching. One writer explains why.
He was testifying fully to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ, or Messiah — the constant stumbling block of that blinded people. Jesus is of course much more than "the Christ," and no one ever preached His higher glory, both personal and given to Him, more than Paul. Yet he still pressed on the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. This was what would break up their unbelief, and the necessary hinge of all further light and blessing.
He argued from Scripture his hearers already had, and it bore fruit in Corinth.
He reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. All of this must have been from the Old Testament, showing what God had foretold about Christ. We learn from his letters to the Corinthians that there was blessed fruit.
This meeting also helps date two of Paul's letters.
In each letter, Silvanus (Silas) and Timothy stand with Paul in the opening address. We only know of these two being in Paul's company from Acts 17 down to Acts 18:5. So Paul must have written both letters from Corinth, one soon after the other — and note that Timothy made a journey there in between.
The stronger testimony did not win the synagogue over.
The coming of Silas and Timothy seems to have encouraged and strengthened the apostle. His zeal and energy in the gospel are evidently increased. But the Jews opposed his teaching and blasphemed. This leads Paul to take his course with great boldness and decision. In all this God led him, and he acted according to His mind.
- Company — Paul had worked faithfully alone. When Silas and Timothy came, his testimony grew stronger: other believers give courage to a servant's spirit.
- Constraint — The better-supported reading has him absorbed in the word itself. Others keep the older wording and see the weight of his message on his soul.
- Content — He pressed one claim: Jesus is the Christ. That claim was the hinge on which every further blessing for his hearers turned.
- Correspondence — This is the only window in which Paul, Silas and Timothy are together. So both Thessalonian letters belong to these days in Corinth.
- Cost — Greater zeal met greater opposition. Paul answered with boldness, and in all of it God was leading him.
But as they opposed and spoke injuriously, he shook his clothes, and said to them, Your blood be upon your own head *I* [am] pure; from henceforth I will go to the nations.
Paul had been preaching in the synagogue at Corinth. This verse is the moment his work there ended: a gesture, a verdict, and a new direction that shaped the rest of his ministry.
The break did not come from a slow audience. It came from a hostile one. One commentator separates people who do not know from people who fight what they have heard.
Ignorance can be borne, and it calls for patient work in presenting the truth. Opposition is quite another thing, especially when the testimony has been full and convincing. Speaking abusively is worse, and blasphemy worse still, because what is being so shamefully rejected is grace and truth in Christ.
The action was a known sign. Paul had used it before, and the Lord had given His messengers the same instruction.
The apostle answered by act as well as by word: he shook out his clothes and spoke to them. This was the spirit, if not the form, of Matthew 10:14. He and Barnabas had carried it out even more strictly at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:51). It was as if the dust of the place they lived in defiled him, and had to be shaken off as a testimony against them.
Another writer joins the act to the words that went with it.
Paul then refused all further responsibility for them. He shook out his clothes — an act that showed his determination — and left them with the solemn words, "Your blood be on your own heads!"
Paul's claim of innocence points back to an older picture: the watchman on the wall.
Paul says in another place, "I am innocent of the blood of all." I was thinking of Ezekiel 33 in connection with this. God set Ezekiel there as a watchman. If he failed to blow the trumpet, he carried the guilt for those killed. Was Paul not referring to that? How necessary it is to be faithful with the trust given to you!
Once he had delivered the message, the outcome rested with the hearers.
He was clean — that is, he had done his duty in witnessing to them. He leaves them to their own folly, while announcing his decision to go to the Gentiles.
A crowd at the trial of Jesus once called blood down on itself. One writer links that cry with Paul's words here.
Paul also said, "Your blood be on your own heads." Those who pushed the Lord to the cross, when Pilate would have released Him, had cried out something worse: "His blood be on us and on our children." And so it is to this day. "I am innocent," the apostle added; "from now on I will go to the Gentiles." This agreed perfectly with his own course elsewhere, and, what matters even more, with the ways of God in the gospel. The Jews were to have the testimony first. They did have it, and not quite in vain. Some heard and found salvation for their souls; there is a remnant chosen by God. But when the mass reject the gospel with hatred and blasphemy, the stream of blessing flows on, not lost but bringing blessing among the Gentiles.
Paul's move looks like a door closing. It opened another one.
He does not go far from the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, is converted, and all his household with him. This came either through the testimony Paul gave in the synagogue or after he had left it. The testimony now reaches the Corinthians, and many believe and are baptized. The Jews rejected the work, but it is now established in the city, for despite its wickedness the Lord had many people there.
The bold step did not backfire.
Timid souls might have thought that the apostle's solemn and final break with the Jews in Corinth would only harden their hatred of the gospel. It was not so. Instead it was the means of bringing Crispus and his household to decision.
- Cause. Slowness to understand calls for patience. Open opposition and blasphemy against grace and truth in Christ ended Paul's work in the synagogue.
- Sign. Shaking out his clothes was a known testimony against them, the same sign the Lord gave His messengers. It said Paul carried no more responsibility for them.
- Clean. "I am innocent" is the watchman's plea of Ezekiel 33. Paul had blown the trumpet, so the guilt now rests on their own heads.
- Order. The Jews heard first, and not in vain. When the mass rejected the message, the stream of blessing flowed on to the Gentiles.
- Result. The break did not harden Corinth. The ruler of the synagogue and his household believed, and many Corinthians with them.
And departing thence he came to the house of a certain [man], by name Justus, who worshipped God, whose house adjoined the synagogue.
Paul had just made a final break with the Jews of Corinth and turned to the Gentiles. Verse 7 shows what that decision looked like: a short walk to the house next door. It raises three questions. What did he leave? Who was Justus? And why did the address matter?
Readers often take the phrase "left there" as a change of address. It points instead to the building where he had been giving his testimony:
"He left there" (verse 7); that is, from the synagogue. He carried on his testimony in the house of a man named Justus, which was close by. Yet a very definite and large work of God took place. Even the ruler of the synagogue was converted.
Some have read the move as Paul leaving the home where he was staying. One writer rejects that reading:
There is no need to take that trouble. He was not leaving his lodgings but the synagogue. So he was not looking for new quarters for his home, but for a suitable place to continue the testimony he had given before in the synagogue... If it were only a lodging, why mention that it adjoined the synagogue, on which Paul was from now on turning his back? But if he needed a suitable room for testimony, the house of Justus met two conditions. First, the owner was himself a Gentile. That made it most fitting to draw Gentiles in, and to underline the serious and new step the apostle was taking. Second, it stood close enough to the synagogue to attract both Jews who might have a conscience about the rejected truth of God, and Gentile converts who used to attend the synagogue, like Justus.
The verse calls Justus "a worshiper of God." That phrase points to a whole class of people:
Leaving them, he enters the house of a Gentile, a man who worshipped the one true God. There were many such Gentiles. Tired of the folly and wickedness of idolatry, they worshipped in the synagogue, although they had not become Jews... The house of a Gentile who acknowledged the one true God suited his work, and to him the work was everything.
Some copies read Titus rather than Titius, which has led readers to link this man with Paul's fellow worker Titus. One writer rules that out:
Whether we read Titus or Titius in Acts 18:7, Justus was clearly a different person from the apostle's companion.
Justus does nothing in this verse except open a door. Commentators differ on whether he had formally become a Jewish convert, but not on what his house was for:
Leaving the synagogue, he taught in the house of one Titus (or Titius) Justus, next to it. This man was a convert to the Jewish faith, for he worshipped God. No doubt he was friendly to Christianity. So he had the honour of providing a suitable meeting room where the apostle could teach and preach. In this way the Lord watched over the gospel.
The two houses shared a wall, but a line now ran between them. One writer sees it in the name Justus itself:
So he withdraws to the house of a convert named Justus, next door to the synagogue. "The just" was the usual title of saints under the law. But now anyone who would be with the just must be outside the synagogue.
A cautious observer might expect this public break to harden the Jews and shut down the work. The opposite happened:
Timid souls might have thought that the apostle's solemn and final break with the Jews in Corinth would confirm them in their hatred of the gospel. It was not so. Instead, it was the means of bringing Crispus and his household to decision... This remark must be made: fellowship with the mind of God about the people who are to hear the message is as necessary as fellowship with His mind about the message itself.
- Left — Paul left the synagogue, not his lodgings; the move was about where the testimony would now be given.
- Lent — Justus, a Gentile who worshipped the one true God, lent a room, and with it gained the honour of housing the preaching.
- Located — the house stood next to the synagogue. It was near enough to draw both Jews and Gentiles who still went there.
- Line — from that day, those who would be with "the just" had to stand outside the synagogue.
- Lives — the break brought gain, not loss. Crispus and his whole household believed.
But Crispus the ruler of the synagogue believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptised.
Paul had just left the Jews of Corinth for the Gentiles when the synagogue's own ruler believed, with his whole household. Many in the city followed, and what looked like defeat became the establishing of the work in a wicked place.
Leaving the Jews behind might have been expected to harden them further. The result was the reverse.
God's way is always the right way. The apostle had solemnly and finally left the Jews in Corinth. Timid souls might have thought this would only confirm them in their hatred of the gospel. It was not so. Instead, it was the means of bringing Crispus and his household to decision.
Rejection by the Jews did not end the work. It took root in the city instead.
The work, rejected by the Jews, is now established in the city; for the Lord had many people there, despite its wickedness.
Scripture rarely stops to name one person. Here it names this man and describes his faith with care.
It is no small thing that the Holy Spirit singles out the name of any man for everlasting record in Scripture. So "Crispus" is mentioned as believing the Lord. It counts all the more because he had been "the ruler of the synagogue". And not only this: "the whole of his household" believed also, though nothing is said of their baptism. Their faith, the great matter, was a real encouragement to the workers, and a powerful appeal to the Jews as a whole. The wording is unusual. It does not say here that he believed "on" the Lord as the object of faith, though that was true too. It says that he believed what the Lord says.
Acts elsewhere tells of households that were baptized, with no word about their faith. Here it is the other way round.
Here we have the faith of the whole household recorded. That contrasts with the silence about the households we have already looked at. But it is striking that Scripture says nothing about the baptism of the household of Crispus. Paul tells us that he baptized Crispus, and says nothing of his household. Notice the contrast. The households not spoken of as believing were baptized. The one household that did believe is not mentioned as being baptized. Why is this? Surely Scripture is perfect in what it tells us and in what it withholds. Nobody would question the baptism of the household of Crispus. They all believed, and so of course were all baptized, even though Scripture does not tell us so. But you could question whether a household without faith had a right to be baptized.
The verse puts three things in order: they heard, they believed, they were baptized. That last step marked them off from the world around them.
It was a time of rich ingathering. These were clearly not Jews but Greeks, yet many of them heard and believed the gospel. As was fitting, they submitted to the outward mark that separates the confessor of Christ from the careless or hostile world. They were buried with Christ through baptism into death. In that act, even if they had been silent, they said that they died with Christ to sin. It was not only that He had died for their sins, now forgiven on their faith. They were also to count themselves dead to sin and alive in Him to God.
The people who believed in Corinth were no better than the city they lived in.
In Corinth there were plenty of the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and swindlers; "and such were some of you," said the apostle to the Corinthians who believed (1 Cor. 6:11). They had in no way escaped those corruptions. Grace does not find, but makes, the saints after a new and heavenly pattern.
Paul later thanked God that he personally baptized very few in Corinth. The many here were therefore baptized by others.
Paul later says that he baptized only Crispus and Gaius of the Corinthian assembly (1 Cor. 1:14): the rest were no doubt baptized by his helpers or by local brothers, after they themselves had been baptized.
That arrangement kept the credit off any one preacher's name, and it also shows what actually produced the new life.
Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel. He left the baptizing to others for the "many" Corinthians who "heard, believed and were baptized" in that city (Acts 18:8). And he tells them in 1 Cor. 4:15: "In Christ Jesus I begot you through the gospel." The gospel, the word of truth, was and is the means of being born of God. It is never baptism, whatever its value in its place.
- Rejection. Leaving the synagogue did not end Paul's work in Corinth. It was the means of bringing Crispus to decision.
- Hearing. They heard, then believed, then were baptized. New life came through the gospel, never through baptism.
- Household. Crispus's whole house believed with him. Scripture is exact in what it records and in what it leaves out.
- Confession. Baptism marked them off from the world. Without a word it said they had died with Christ to sin.
- Fruit. A synagogue ruler and many Corinthians believed in a wicked city. Grace does not find saints; it makes them.
And the Lord said by vision in [the] night to Paul, Fear not, but speak and be not silent;
Paul was working in Corinth, and the opposition there was growing. The Lord spoke to him one night, and behind His words lies a question: what keeps a man speaking when everything around him pushes him to stop?
The Lord's first word to Paul is about fear. That tells us something about the man who received it.
Visions and revelations were fairly frequent with the apostle. This time the purpose was practical. The Lord said to him, "Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent" (v. 9). The way it is worded implies that he was anxious. He needed a spring of courage beyond anything his fellow workers could supply, and the Lord gave it. Natural boldness is completely unsuited to spiritual warfare, where the rule is, "When I am weak, then I am strong." For anything to be safe and of God, it must depend on the grace of Christ.
Paul later told the Corinthians how he felt when he was with them. He was not the first servant of God to need this kind of word.
At Corinth the great apostle Paul heard the same voice that had encouraged Jeremiah and Gideon. He had arrived there in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling (1 Cor. 2:3). The voice spoke to him in a night vision.
Opposition in the city was growing. The question was who had to meet it.
As Paul watched the opposition grow, he might well have lost heart, or even left his post, if he had only weighed his own ability to meet it. So the Lord showed him in a special way that the matter did not turn on him at all. It was the Lord against the enemy. The certain presence of the Lord always gives support and courage, when the servant knows he has His mind and His protection. The Lord made clear too that his work could not be stopped until His purposes had been carried out. The many people in this city must be gathered in, in spite of Satan's efforts to stop it.
This vision gave Paul no new directions. It gave him two promises instead, in a city that offered him little reason for hope.
But this vision is only encouragement. The Lord plainly guarantees Paul against harm, and assures him that many people in this Gentile city belong to Him. The Jews there had already opposed him so openly that he had to turn away from them. Corinth was a naturally discouraging place. Paul's heart was bound up with Israel, as he tells us himself, so the special seal the Lord now put on his work here is very significant. He goes on there for a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Does God still guide His workers like this? One writer answers carefully.
It is interesting to see how the Lord watches over the work, and over the hearts of His workers. Perhaps God does not give direct messages and visions now as He did then. But He has not stopped guiding those who work faithfully in His name, or showing Himself to their hearts. He still holds the keys, as He did then. He opens, and no one shuts. When we work for Him, He is with us, to speak to our hearts, to direct us, and to order all our circumstances for His glory, in divine wisdom.
The rest of the account shows what came of that night.
The testimony went out boldly; the vision did what it was sent to do. Paul was not afraid. He spoke and did not keep quiet. Many people came out to the Lord's name, and the Lord let no one else harm His servant. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without our Father. The very hairs of our head are all numbered. The Lord Himself will acknowledge before His Father anyone who acknowledges the Son before men. Truths like these give ground for good courage, not for fear of man.
- Fear. The words "do not be afraid" met real fear. Natural boldness is no help in this fight; only the grace of Christ is.
- Weakness. Paul came to Corinth weak, afraid and trembling. The same voice that once steadied Gideon and Jeremiah steadied him.
- Presence. The vision shifted the contest off Paul's own capability and made it a matter of the Lord against the enemy.
- Stay. This vision gave no new directions. It told Paul to stay in a discouraging city, because many people there belonged to the Lord.
- Speak. The vision did its work. Paul spoke, no one harmed him, and the keys are still in the same hands: He opens, and no one shuts.
because *I* am with thee, and no one shall set upon thee to injure thee; because I have much people in this city.
Opposition was rising against Paul in Corinth, and the Lord spoke to him in a night vision. He gave two reasons to keep speaking, and the second one reached past Paul's safety to people who had not yet believed.
The verse holds a promise about Paul and a promise about Corinth.
Here the Lord graciously stoops to give two reasons. The first: "for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you." The second: "because I have much people in this city." What could be more comforting to the tried servant? The Lord bound Himself, on the one hand, to give His gracious and mighty presence against all adversaries, and on the other, to open a great and effective door for his work. However much Satan's agents raged, the Lord had many to bring to Himself as His own in that depraved and godless city.
The Lord tied His promise of protection to the work Paul still had to do.
As Paul looked at the rising opposition, he might well lose heart, or even leave his post, if he only weighed his own ability to meet it. So the Lord showed him, in a special way, that the question was not about himself, but about the Lord against the enemy… He made two things clear. First, not a hair of the servant's head could fall to the ground without his Lord's permission. Second, nothing could stop his work until the Lord had accomplished His purposes. The Lord must gather in the "much people" of the city, despite Satan's efforts to stop Him. So the Holy Spirit is careful to add that the apostle "stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them."
No one would have expected the Lord to choose this city.
No one could have expected God to set up a monument to His Son, not in intellectual Athens, but in corrupt Corinth. Was there any earlier link, or any natural fit at all, between the Holy One of God and this city known everywhere for its impurity? The grace of God gives no account of its matters, but works to the glory of Christ; and most of all where man is most needy.
Another writer describes what the Lord found there: "Out of the terrible filth at Corinth he picked up pearls which will be the delight of his Lord for ever."
Some read "my people" as meaning God saw decent, well-behaved types in Corinth and marked them out. One writer rejects that reading.
It is sad to hear such remarks as those of Limborch. He wants the Lord to mean virtuous, well-disposed people — called His people here for that reason, and His sheep in John 10:16 — rather than objects of sheer and sovereign grace, meant to magnify His own mercy in redemption. We are all liable to mistakes… but an error like this undermines the gospel. It shows the faintest sense of how completely man is ruined, and of how deeply we need grace.
The Lord called them His own before they had heard the message.
Again, when open opposition broke out against Paul at Corinth, who encouraged him to stay there and work? It was the Great Shepherd Himself, who told him that He had much people in that city. He knew who they were, and where to find them. They might be at the riverside, like Lydia, or in the jail at Philippi, or among the leading men of Athens, like Dionysius, or among the crowds of Corinth, the main city of the Roman province of Achaia.
Serious disorders later broke out in the church at Corinth. This promise still steadied Paul when he wrote to them.
However desperately evil these disorders were, general or special, the apostle did not lose confidence in the words the Lord spoke in the early days of his work at Corinth: "Do not be afraid, but go on speaking… because I have much people in this city."… Their practical state clashed sharply with their standing, both as individuals and as a church. But he remembered the Lord's assurance, and pressed home their responsibility.
(Older translations read "much people in this city"; the ESV renders it "many in this city who are my people".)
- I have — the Lord counts as His own a crowd who had not yet believed. The words claim ownership, not good character.
- I am with you — Paul's safety did not rest on his own strength. It rested on the Lord standing against the enemy.
- In this city — grace passed by intellectual Athens and settled on Corinth. It works most of all where human need is greatest.
- He knows them — the Shepherd knew His own across a whole pagan city, long before the preacher found them.
- It holds — years later, facing their worst disorders, Paul still trusted these words. He held the Corinthians to their responsibility.
And he remained [there] a year and six months, teaching among them the word of God.
The Lord had just told Paul in a night vision not to be afraid, and Paul answered by staying — a year and a half in one hard city. Why there, and what did that teaching involve?
Corinth gave Paul every reason to move on. The ESV says he stayed; an older rendering says he settled down.
At Corinth, in the face of all difficulties, the apostle stayed longer than we have yet heard of anywhere else. "And he settled down a year and six months, teaching among them the word of God" (v. 11).
The eighteen months answer what the Lord had said the night before. He had many people in that city.
The many people in that city had to be gathered in, despite Satan's efforts to hinder. So the Holy Spirit is careful to add that the apostle "continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them."
The Lord promised two things: safety for the worker, and a harvest for the work.
In the next verse the Lord kindly gives two reasons. The first: "I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you." The second: "I have many in this city." What could be more comforting to the tried servant? The Lord bound Himself to two things. He would give His gracious and mighty presence against all adversaries. He would also open to him a great and effective door in his work.
The verse says teaching, not preaching. The state of the city explains why.
Paul therefore continued eighteen months, teaching the Word of God there. There is no doubt the Corinthian assembly needed solid teaching. Their city was notorious for the careless, loose living of its people. Even the assembly later needed Paul's two letters to reprove and correct their condition.
Preaching and teaching do different work.
At Corinth (Acts 18:11), at Rome (Acts 28:31), and elsewhere, Paul kept doing both. Evangelising increases the assembly, but some things belong to teaching and not to preaching. So the work of God needs both if it is to grow in health. Where people want simple evangelising and nothing more, the saints never learn the truth in full. Where they look down on it or neglect it, interest in the spread of God's work starts to fade.
Corinth became more than one stop among many.
Corinth is bound to Paul's history, teaching, and writings almost as closely and as importantly as Jerusalem or Antioch. We may call it his European centre. Here God had many people. Here Paul stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. Here too he wrote his first apostolic letters — the two Epistles to the Thessalonians.
The assembly formed in those months had every advantage. What followed is sobering.
The result was not only the salvation of many souls, but the church of God there — holy, universal, apostolic, if ever such an assembly existed anywhere. The man who planted it had no superior. Those who watered it had no better. And God gave the increase beyond dispute. Yet how soon that fair scene was spoiled! Sin appeared among them that even the Gentiles rarely heard of. Worse still was the low, fleshly and worldly-minded state of the saints as a whole.
One writer draws a lesson for service today from Paul's long stays.
I have been struck lately to see how long the Apostle of the Gentiles stayed in many of the places he visited. At Antioch he remained "a whole year" (Acts 11:26). At Corinth "he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them" (Acts 18:11). At Ephesus, his centre, he was there a full two years and three months (Acts 19:8-10). It is a serious question whether servants of the Lord today move about too much like shooting stars. That may be why the results of their labour so often fade quickly. None of us are apostles; but we may well learn from his wise ways how the Lord's work is best carried on.
- Promise first. The Lord promised His presence and many people in that city. The stay grew out of that.
- Patience next. The promise became eighteen settled months. It is his longest stay so far, and in a hard city.
- Teaching, not just preaching. A loose city produced converts who needed teaching. Preaching alone leaves believers short of the truth.
- Fruit widened. Those months produced an assembly and the two letters to Thessalonica. Corinth became his European base.
- Warning attached. The best of workmen planted and watered this church, and it still slid into worldliness. Long teaching alone guarantees nothing.
But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one consent rose against Paul and led him to the judgment-seat,
The Lord had promised Paul in a vision at Corinth that no one would attack him to harm him. Then the Jews rose against him as one and took him to the Roman governor's judgment seat, where that promise met its test.
Luke does not simply call Gallio a governor. He gives the exact title, and that title had only recently changed.
It is worth noticing again the exact position Gallio held. He was 'proconsul' of Achaia. This is all the more striking. Under both Tiberius and Caligula the province had been imperial, so a propraetor governed it then. Claudius, the reigning emperor, had handed Achaia back to the senate. That change replaced its former government with a proconsul. So at this time Luke speaks accurately, not of a propraetor, but of a proconsul.
His accusers knew the man's reputation and built their hopes on it. Those hopes turned against them.
Gallio was known as one of the most likeable of men. 'No mortal,' said the famous Seneca of him, 'is so sweet to one man as he is to all men.' … And the Jews hoped that his easy-going temper and his love of approval would serve their bitter hostility. That hostility was aimed at the uncompromising witness to the one true God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. But malice defeats itself against grace and truth whenever God is pleased to order it. Here God had clearly promised to be with Paul, and that no one would injure him. So it came to pass, in a way strikingly different from the apostle's experience elsewhere.
Everything turned on one word in the accusation: "the law."
The Jews counted on the governor for a sentence that suited their desires. 'This man,' they said, 'is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law.' Gallio saw through the case in a moment. He saw that it needed no defence. 'The law' in their mouth meant the law of Moses. This was enough for the Roman, whose pride was roused for his own.
Gallio applied one test to the case.
Of course, Gallio may have had little regard for Jesus. But he still saw that the charge of the Jews was no proper charge at all. The charge was not true; and true or not, Gallio knew it had nothing to do with the laws of his own country. Paul was not even called upon to defend himself.
The attack did not come from the pagan city around Paul.
Notice that the chief opponents of the gospel were not the pagan idol-worshippers, but God's ancient people. These were the ever-ready tools of Satan's hatred. The chief obstacle to the spread of the truth has always been "religion," often wearing the mask of zeal for God.
The Lord had said no one would hurt Paul. He kept it through the character of the judge.
There was an attempt against him. But under God's hand the cool indifference of Gallio, the Roman proconsul, defeated it. He treated the whole matter as arguments about words and names, and cared for none of these things. So God can use the temperament of a governor, as well as the decree of a Caesar, to serve His ends.
Gallio thought he was brushing aside a quarrel about nothing.
No doubt for him it was only a question of words and names. He can meet that with the most philosophic indifference! … How little he knew of Him who was sheltering His people, even by means like these.
Gallio's ruling saved Paul. It also showed what he valued.
To him a "matter of wrong," however small, mattered more than the "worship of God." That he treated as a "question of words and names" — a mere trifle, unworthy of a philosophic mind. Putting down a rebellion against Caesar claimed his devotion. The rights of the King of kings he could afford to ignore.
- Promise. God had promised that no one would injure Paul at Corinth. In Gallio's court that word came true.
- Plot. The accusers moved as one and chose their judge with care, hoping his easy temper would serve them. But malice defeats itself against grace and truth whenever God is pleased to order it.
- Pretext. The word "law" in the charge meant the law of Moses, not Rome's law. Once Gallio saw that, the case had nothing left in it.
- Providence. God did not need a friendly judge. An indifferent one served just as well. He can use the temperament of a governor as easily as the decree of a Caesar.
- Peril. Gallio shielded Paul, yet ignored the rights of the King of kings. Treating the worship of God as a quarrel about words is a choice, not neutrality.
saying, This [man] persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.
In Corinth, after months of Paul's teaching, his Jewish opponents drag him before the Roman governor. Whose law did they mean, and why did the case collapse before Paul said a word?
The accusation sounds serious until you ask which law is meant. One commentator says the accusers meant the law of Moses, and Gallio saw it at once:
The Jews then rose up against Paul with one accord. They brought him to the well-known seat of the governor, where they counted on a sentence that would suit them. Gallio saw through the case in a moment. He saw that it needed no defence. "The law" in their mouth meant the law of Moses. This was enough for the Roman, whose pride was roused for his own law.
Another writer adds that the charge failed on two counts. It was false, and it was none of Rome's business:
Gallio may have had little regard for Jesus. But he still recognized the charge of the Jews to be no proper charge at all. Their accusation was only that Paul was persuading men to worship God contrary to Jewish law. The charge itself was not true. But true or not, Gallio knew it had nothing to do with the laws of his own country. Paul was not even called upon to defend himself.
The accusers had been granted permission to worship in their own way. One commentator shows how they turned that permission against Paul:
It is they who bring him before the Gentile judgment seat. They use the permission granted to them to worship God in their own way, and complain of him as stirring up an unlawful worship. It is their own law, however, that they are thinking of, and not the Roman one, as Gallio easily sees. They were never noted for obedience to their Gentile rulers. Yet for their particular purpose they might profess to have no king but Caesar. It was a mere hypocritical plea, as everyone knew, and he treats it as such.
Who fought the gospel hardest in Corinth? Not the ones you might expect:
The reader cannot fail to notice this: the chief opponents of the gospel were not the heathen idolaters, but God's ancient people. These were the ever-ready tools of Satan's hostility. The chief obstacle to the spread of the truth has always been "religion," often wearing the mask of zeal for God.
This charge was one move in a longer campaign. Each city saw a different version of it:
On the second tour the tactics changed... The ruling powers were called in at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth, and legal processes were used. At the first, the charge was breaking Roman law by bringing in a new object of worship without permission. At Thessalonica the accusation took the form of treason against Caesar... At Corinth new ground was chosen. Paul was a breaker of the Jewish law, teaching something contrary to the law of Moses. But none of these efforts stopped the movement, though each rested on seemingly legal grounds.
One writer says the governor was right to send them away, and explains why:
The proconsul, Gallio, drives them from the judgment seat. He was right. His office was not to uphold the Jewish law, but to keep order and peace in the country. The charge was only another proof of the unreasonable and unrestrained hatred of these poor people. They had refused the grace of God, and fed themselves on hostility against everyone.
Behind the governor's indifference stood a promise God had already made to Paul. The very man the accusers counted on became the means of Paul's safety:
The Jews hoped his easy-going temper and his love of approval would serve their bitter hostility. What they attacked was the uncompromising witness to the one true God the Father, and to one Lord Jesus Christ. But malice defeats itself against grace and truth whenever God is pleased to order it so. Here He had clearly promised to be with Paul, and that no one should injure him. So it came to pass, in a way very different from the apostle's experience elsewhere.
- Charge — they accused Paul of teaching worship "contrary to the law." But "the law" in their mouths meant Moses' law, not Rome's.
- Hollow — it was untrue, and it leaned on a permission the accusers used only when it suited them. Gallio treated the plea as the hypocrisy it was.
- Source — the attack came not from the city's idol-worshippers but from religious people. Opposition to the truth often wears the mask of zeal for God.
- Pattern — Philippi, Thessalonica and Corinth each saw a different legal charge. None of them stopped the work.
- Outcome — an indifferent judge drove the accusers away, and God's promise that no one would harm Paul was kept in a way no one expected.
But as Paul was going to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, If indeed it was some wrong or wicked criminality, O Jews, of reason I should have borne with you;
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
but if it be questions about words, and names, and the law that ye have, see to it yourselves; [for] *I* do not intend to be judge of these things.
The Jews at Corinth could not silence Paul, so they dragged him before Gallio, the Roman governor. Gallio threw the case out before Paul could say a word. What was he refusing to judge, and why did God use such a man to shield His servant?
Everything turned on one phrase in the charge: "the law."
The Jews then with one accord rose up against Paul, and brought him to the governor's well-known judgment seat, where they expected a ruling in their favour. "This man," said they, "persuades men to worship God contrary to the law." Gallio saw through the case in a moment, and saw that it needed no defence. "The law" in their mouth meant the law of Moses. This was enough for the Roman, whose pride was roused for his own law. He had heard enough to be sure that no state law, no public morality, and no private rights had been broken. It was no business of his to look into it further.
Rome had not sent Gallio to enforce the Jewish law.
The apostle is accused of having persuaded men to worship contrary to the law. The proconsul, Gallio, drives them from the judgment seat. He was right. His office was not to maintain the Jewish law, but to preserve order and peace in the country. It was only another proof of the unreasonable and uncontrolled hatred of these poor people. They had refused the grace of God, and fed on hostility towards everyone.
Gallio refused to let the crowd force a verdict out of him. He handed the dispute back to the men who brought it.
The Roman left the Jews to settle their religious questions in their own way. Gallio declined to have his hand forced; he had no mind to be a judge of these things. The kindest and most courteous man can still be full of contempt for the truth, which he knows nothing about.
In Gallio's court the smallest injury outranked the worship of God.
To him a "matter of wrong," however small, mattered more than the "worship of God." He treated that as a "question of words and names" — a mere trifle, unworthy of a philosopher's attention. Putting down a revolt against Caesar had his full attention. The rights of the King of kings he could afford to ignore. But intellectualism is as fatal to the soul as Judaism is. A mind working by reason alone and a mind working by ritual both destroy it.
The accusers were pleading a law they had never honoured themselves.
They are thinking of their own law, however, not the Roman one, and Gallio sees it. They were never known for obeying their non-Jewish rulers. Yet when it suited their purpose, they could claim to have no king but Caesar. It was a mere hypocritical plea, as everyone knew, and he treats it as such. No doubt for him it was only a question of words and names, which he can meet with the most philosophic indifference! How little he knew of Him who even by means like these was sheltering His people.
Gallio had no wish to hear Paul, and no liking for him either.
His pleasant indifference did not want to be troubled with what the apostle had to say. The Lord guarded the interests of the gospel, and of its blessed witness, by using in His providence the careless good nature of the judge. That judge certainly could not be accused of any real favour towards the apostle.
Bring a matter concerning Christ to the courts of any age, and the answer comes back the same.
"If it were a matter of wrong or wicked crime," the Gallios of this world will deal with it. But if it is a matter of "love" and "Jesus," then in the world's sight it is only "a question of words and names," and the world "will be no judge of such matters." Or if at times they do turn judge in such matters, it will only be to persecute the seeker after Christ. So it is useless to appeal to human power. Christians from early times have fallen into this trap, only to learn that the princes of this world have crucified the Lord of glory.
- Charge — The accusers dressed a religious quarrel as a crime. The law they named was Moses' law, not Rome's, and Gallio saw it at once.
- Limit — He was right to refuse. His job was to keep order and peace, not to enforce Jewish law.
- Contempt — A small wrong he would hear. Christ he filed under "words and names." A courteous man can still despise the truth.
- Shelter — He never knew what he was doing. God turned a bored judge's indifference into a wall around His servant.
- Echo — The world still ranks a small wrong above the worship of God. Appealing to it for the things of Christ is hopeless.
And he drove them from the judgment-seat.
The Lord had promised to be with His servant, and here a judge who cares nothing for Him keeps that promise. Why did Gallio drive Paul's accusers out of his own court at Corinth?
The Jews accused Paul of persuading people to worship God contrary to the law. Gallio heard the word "law" and checked it against the laws he did care about.
He had heard enough to be sure of one thing. No one had broken state law, or public morality, or private rights. It was no business of his to look into it further. Most people at that time looked down on the Jews, and that contempt no doubt strengthened his decision. The accused man reaped the benefit. His good-natured indifference did not want to be troubled with what the apostle had to say. Religious opinion, or the worship of God, was a question between the Jews and a man they blamed. It did not concern him or his office. God was in none of his thoughts, and he preferred to hear no more.
Gallio had no interest in hearing the defence. The ruling itself was sound, whatever the judge's motive:
He was right. His job was not to uphold the Jewish law, but to keep order and peace in the country. It was only one more proof of the wild, unreasonable hatred of these poor people. They had refused the grace of God, and they fed themselves on hostility towards everyone.
The wording is not gentle. This was no polite dismissal. It was a man clearing his court.
The kindest and most polite man can be full of contempt when it comes to the truth, which he knows nothing about. "And he drove them from the tribunal" (v. 16). Even if he used no physical force, the words imply at the very least a sharp, final dismissal.
Another writer looks at the judge himself. Gallio was proconsul — the Roman governor of the province:
This most good-natured man — if his brother Seneca described him rightly — had an easy temper, and he now held the place of authority as proconsul. To him the Jews brought their complaint, no doubt expecting a friendly hearing. Their plot, however, completely failed. Gallio refused to take up their charges. Questions of Jewish law lay outside his powers as a judge. He said he would have listened to any matter of wrong or serious crime.
Look at who God used here. Not a friend of Paul's, but a judge with no faith at all:
But the Lord was with His servant, as He had said. He used the unbelieving indifference of Gallio to defeat the spiteful plans of the Jews, and to turn their false charges back on themselves. Their evil purposes came to nothing, so the apostle had more freedom and less trouble as he carried on the work of the gospel.
The judge found the whole business tiresome:
No doubt for him it was only a question of words and names, and he can meet that with complete philosophical indifference! Think of the weariness, even to a Stoic, of being a judge in such matters! How little he knew of Him who even by means like these was sheltering His people.
Gallio's verdict helped Paul. But look at how he ranked the matters in front of him:
To him a "matter of wrong", however small, mattered more than the "worship of God". He treated that as a "question of words and names" — a mere trifle, beneath a philosophical mind. Putting down a revolt against Caesar had his full attention. Settling the rights of the King of kings he could afford to ignore.
The dismissal left Paul free to stay in Corinth, and he used the time:
It is worth noting that the apostle did not leave Corinth at once. The Jews had failed before the governor, and that left him free to stay... it was during his stay at Corinth that the two letters to the Thessalonians were written.
- Attack. Paul's accusers took him to the governor's court, sure the judge would side with them. Their plot failed outright.
- Answer. Gallio ruled that questions of Jewish law were not his to judge. The decision was right, though he cared nothing for the truth behind it.
- Abruptness. The wording is forceful. Gallio cleared his court, and Paul never got to make his defence.
- Arrangement. The Lord kept His word to His servant through a man who had no idea whose people he was sheltering.
- Aftermath. The failed case bought Paul time to stay, teach, and write. Gallio's indifference is a warning, not a model.
And having all laid hold on Sosthenes the ruler of the synagogue, they beat him before the judgment-seat. And Gallio troubled himself about none of these things.
Paul's accusers came to Gallio's court hoping to see him condemned. They left watching a mob beat their own synagogue ruler, while the governor looked away.
(The writers quoted below use older translations, which call the tribunal "the judgment-seat.")
Sosthenes held the top office in the synagogue at Corinth. He had not always held it.
Sosthenes seems to have taken Crispus' place in that office, without any hint of his conversion as yet, though he may be the one later spoken of as a brother.
Another writer goes further and dates his conversion to this beating.
Sosthenes came from Corinth (see Acts 18:17). It seems he was converted after the beating the Greeks gave him as chief ruler of the synagogue. He had taken the place of Crispus, who was converted a little earlier.
Both writers hold this as likely, not certain.
Gallio saw through the charge and threw it out. The mob did not stop where he stopped.
The Jews were thinking of their own law, not the Roman one, as Gallio easily sees. It was a mere hypocritical plea, as everyone knew, and he treats it as such. The accusers were driven from the judgment-seat. The crowd, going further than the judge, beat the ruler of the synagogue in front of it. But Gallio was still indifferent.
The mob acted on what Gallio thought of the whole dispute. Deep scorn lay behind his refusal to step in.
To him the Jewish religion was a miserable, contemptible superstition, because it cut its followers off from the whole world. The human heart does not love the truth that condemns the falseness of the world and its ways. If the head of this religion were beaten, it was nothing to him; in his eyes he deserved it, and so they could go ahead. Unbelief despises superstition, and yet supports it. But it hates the truth, and persecutes it if it can.
Gallio was not a cruel man. That is what makes him so instructive.
The Roman governor left the Jews to settle their religious questions in their own way. Gallio refused to have his hand forced; he had no mind to be a judge of such things. The kindest and most courteous person can show plenty of contempt where the truth is concerned — a truth he knows nothing about.
Gallio had already told the Jews that a genuine wrong would have had his attention. His scale of values is the point.
To him a "matter of wrong," however small, mattered more than the "worship of God." He treated that as a "question of words and names" — a mere trifle, unworthy of a philosophic intellect. Settling a revolt against Caesar had his full attention. The rights of the King of kings he could afford to ignore. But intellectualism, as much as ritual religion, is fatal to the welfare of the soul. The only remedy is a heart truly subject to the Word of God — one that, unlike Gallio, finds its pleasure in the worship of God as revealed in His Son.
The verse says only that "they all" seized Sosthenes. One writer names them, and points back to the vision Paul had seen.
The Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him in front of the judgment-seat. Gallio paid no attention to any of it. Note that the vision came true; Paul suffered no harm.
The governor had no idea whose purposes he was serving.
So God in His providence brought to nothing the malicious attack of the Jews on Paul, while showing up the unbelieving easiness of Gallio.
Indifference feels like neutrality. One writer argues that it is nothing of the kind.
The hearer who is merely careless may not think he is despising or rejecting the offer of salvation. But this matter is of unspeakable interest to God, and of unspeakable importance to man. To be indifferent about it is, in some respects, the most guilty way to treat the message.
- Cared not. Gallio was courteous and fair, yet he treated the worship of God as a quarrel about words. Decency and contempt for the truth can live side by side.
- Cost nothing. Because the governor cared nothing, the crowd felt free to beat Sosthenes at the very seat of justice.
- Covered. God used that same indifference as a shield. The vision came true, Paul suffered no harm, and the blows landed elsewhere.
- Converted. Sosthenes may be the brother named later with Paul, converted after this beating — likely, though not certain.
- Cure. Careless indifference to God's message is not neutrality; it is the most guilty way to treat it. The remedy is a heart that delights in the worship Gallio despised.
And Paul, having yet stayed [there] many days, took leave of the brethren and sailed thence to Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having shorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow;
Paul's long stay in Corinth ends, and Luke adds one puzzling detail: a shaved head and a vow at the port of Cenchrea. Why would the apostle who preached freedom from the law leave with an old Jewish rite? And was the vow even his?
The case the Jews brought against Paul had collapsed before Gallio, the Roman governor.
It is interesting to note that the apostle did not leave Corinth at once. The failure of the Jews before the governor left him free… He wrote the two letters to the Thessalonians during his stay at Corinth. There was a gap between them, short but enough to show what damage could come upon the saints in a brief time. So those who think it took centuries before error was able to enter are quite mistaken.
Scripture never states what prompted it. One suggestion links the vow to a woman commended later for her care of Paul.
Who this last remark refers to has been much questioned. We believe Luke meant Paul. We know no reason why he should not have made a vow, since we do not know the circumstances in which he made it. Romans 16:1-2 may throw a little light on the matter. Notice how the apostle there writes of Phoebe, a servant of the assembly at Cenchrea… "a helper of many and of myself as well," he says. It may well be that some illness overtook him, and that he owed much to Phoebe's care. In gratitude to God for his recovery, he then made a vow.
Commentators differ. Aquila's name stands nearest, so some read the clause as about him. Others hold that it is Paul.
The ancients do not seem to have doubted that Paul himself is meant. They read the words just before as a parenthesis. Others, in more recent times, have been more willing to attach the vow and the shaved head to Aquila. But the great apostle went a long way in going along with Jewish forms, and in stooping to them, in cases that left the grace of the gospel untouched. What roused a storm of feeling in him, and unanswerable argument, was the effort to force the law on Gentiles who believed.
The other case rests less on grammar than on the nature of a vow.
A vow was a voluntary act between the person and God. No one was required to make one. So not keeping it could give no offence, and not taking it up broke no law. Aquila might have taken it before he became a Christian. He would then let it run to its end, and honour Moses in something that to him as a Christian was a matter of indifference. But Paul taught that we are "dead to the law through the body of Christ" (Romans 7:4). How could that fit with choosing to take up something no one else's conscience required?
What sort of vow was it? There is little to go on.
The New Testament records only two vows. One is the vow at Cenchrea by Paul (or Aquila, as some judge), which is wrapped in mystery. The other is the vow of the four men at Jerusalem. Acts 18:18; Acts 21:23. Both were probably Nazirite vows, since the head was shaved. According to the law the final shaving had to be at the tabernacle or temple. Numbers 6:18.
The timing of the shaving matters.
Paul did not let his hair grow, and that is the opposite of a Nazirite. It was when the vow was over that the head was shorn.
Whoever made the vow, it opens a window on Paul and his own nation.
The opposition of the Jews does not take away his attachment to his nation. It does not take away his faithfulness in preaching the gospel to them first, or his recognition of all that belonged to them in grace before God. He even submits to Jewish ordinances. Perhaps habit had some influence over him which was not of the Spirit. But according to the Spirit he had no thought of denying what the patient grace of God granted to the people… Liberty that stoops to prejudices and habits is not the same thing as being subject to them.
Another writer puts the accent on love rather than on habit.
In his own mind, and as led by the Spirit, we feel sure he was far above and beyond a religion of feasts and vows, but he stooped in grace to the customs of his nation. To the Jew he became a Jew. Their constant opposition to his teaching, and their violent persecution of him, never weakened his affection for his beloved people.
The order of the couple's names is worth noticing.
Priscilla's name comes before her husband's — an unusual thing at that time and in that part of the world. We see the same order in Romans 16:3… We can only conclude that the wife was spiritually more devoted, and the leader in the things of the Lord.
- Freedom. Gallio's refusal to act left Paul free. He stayed on at Corinth, wrote the two Thessalonian letters there, and left when he chose.
- Gratitude. One reading links the vow to Phoebe of Cenchrea, who cared for Paul. The vow may have been thanks for recovery from illness.
- Dispute. Commentators differ over whose head was shaved. The case for Aquila is that a vow is voluntary, and that Paul taught believers are dead to the law.
- Ending. The shaving marks a vow completed, not begun — the opposite of a Nazirite letting his hair grow.
- Affection. Whoever took it, the record shows an apostle of grace who never turned from his own people. Stooping to old customs is not the same as being bound by them.