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.